Partly allowed

Smt Santosh Arivnd and Others v. Arif Khan and Others

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CMA/1383/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 17.48 lakhs to Rs. 28.57 lakhs by adjusting personal expense deductions, adding future prospects, and increasing mental agony and funeral expenses. The court also set aside the tribunal's order allowing the insurance company to recover payments from the vehicle owner and driver.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 11,09,071/-; Recovery rights against owner and driver set aside; Order modified.

Smt Santosh Arivnd and Others Vs Arif Khan and Others — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1383/2012

¶3

Smt Santosh Arivnd, aged 32 years W/o Late Sh. Narottam Arvind, R/o Babji Nagar, Baran.

¶4

Shivani Arvind aged about 13 years, D/o Late Sh. Narottam R/o Babji Nagar, Baran (minor therefore through his natural mother Santosh Arvind)

¶5

Lalit Arvind aged about 7 years, S/o Late Sh. Narottam Arvind, R/o Babji Nagar, Baran (minor therefore through his natural mother Santosh Arvind)

¶6

----Appellants/claimants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Arif Khan @ Aarif Ali S/o Farukh Ali R/o Gram Badora, Teh. Atru, Distt. Baran

¶9

(Driver)

¶10

Jamnalal S/o Bherulal, R/o Gram Kolukheda, Teh. Atru, Distt. Baran.

¶11

(Owner)

¶12

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office-nearby Chouraha, Chavani, kota through its Branch Manager, Manager.

¶13

(Insurance Company)

¶14

Kanhi Devi W/o Mohanlal Arvind R/o Makan No.6/19, Ambedkar Colony, Kunhadi, Kota.

¶15

(Performan respondent)

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

Connected With

¶18

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1874/2012

¶19

Jamnalal S/o Bherulal, R/o Gram Kolukheda, Teh. Atru, Distt. Baran.

(Owner)

----Appellant

Versus

Smt Santosh Arivnd, aged 32 years W/o Late Sh. Narottam Arvind, R/o Babji Nagar, Baran.

¶24

Shivani Arvind aged about 13 years, D/o Late Sh. Narottam R/o Babji Nagar, Baran (minor therefore through his natural mother Santosh Arvind)

¶25

(2 of 6)

¶26

[CMA-1383/2012]

¶27

Lalit Arvind aged about 7 years, S/o Late Sh. Narottam Arvind, R/o Babji Nagar, Baran (minor therefore through his natural mother Santosh Arvind)

¶28

4.Kanhi Devi W/o Mohanlal Arvind R/o Makan No.6/19, Ambedkar Colony, Kunhadi, Kota.

¶29

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office nearby Kotdi Chouraha Chavani Kota through its Branch Manager, Manager.

¶30

(Insurance Company)

¶31

Aarif Khan @ Aarif Ali S/o Faruk Ali R/o Gram Badora, Teh. Atru, Distt. Baran.

¶32

-----(Driver)

¶33

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Singhal in SBCMA No.1383/2012
	Mr. Lokesh Parihar in SBCMA No.1874/2012
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. C.S. Jodha for Insurance Company

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶35

Judgment

¶36

The aforesaid appeals have arisen from the judgment and award dt. 10.2.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Case No.128/2008 (for short the ‘Tribunal) whereby the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,48,184/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short ‘the claimants’) and the Insurance Company has been held entitled to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶37

CMA No.1383/2012 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation whereas CMA

¶38

[CMA-1383/2012]

¶39

(3 of 6)

¶40

No.1874/2012 has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle by challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶41

CMA No.1383/2012- Learned counsel for the claimants submits that tribunal wrongly deducted the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/3rd. Tribunal had overlooked that five members were dependent on the deceased. So deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that tribunal had not awarded amount towards future prospects whereas it should be 50% of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for claimants also submits that tribunal had awarded very meager amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses, whereas it should be 40,000/- per person towards mental agony and suffering and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses. So, judgment of the tribunal be modified.

¶42

Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors. reported in 2020 0 AIR (SC) 3076; (2) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors. reported in 2019 Suppl. AIR (SC) 906 and (3) Janabai vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2022 0 AIR (SC) 3731.

¶43

CMA No.1874/2012- Learned counsel for the appellantowner submits that tribunal has wrongly held the appellant liable to pay the compensation and granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner also submits that driver of the alleged vehicle had license to drive light

¶44

[CMA-1383/2012]

¶45

(4 of 6)

¶46

motor vehicle and alleged vehicle is light transport vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2017 (2) RAR 41 (SC) held that a person who is having license to drive light motor vehicle, can drive light transport vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. So, judgment of the tribunal be modified and direction to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant-owner be set aside.

¶47

Learned counsel for the owner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Asha & ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1 (2004) ACC 533 and Smt. Ganga & ors. Vs. Shyoji Lal & ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.8319/2011 decided on 8.2.2018.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 16 whereas it should be 15. He also submits that driver Aarif Khan did not have any valid and effective driving license. So, judgment of the tribunal is according to law and appeal be dismissed.

¶49

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the appellant-owner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶50

It is an admitted position that learned tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased whereas the learned tribunal had considered 5 persons as dependents of the deceased. So, deductions towards personal expenses should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd . Learned tribunal had not awarded the future prospects so it should be 50% of the deceased income.

¶51

[CMA-1383/2012]

¶52

(5 of 6)

¶53

Learned tribunal also awarded very meager amount towards love and affection as well as funeral expenses so it should be modified and lumpsum amount of Rs.1 lacs is awarded towards love and affection instead of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.5,000/-. Learned tribunal had wrongly gave right to the Insurance Company for recovery of the award amount from the owner and driver after paying the same to the claimants because as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund (supra), persons having licnese to drive light motor vehicle can also drive the light transport vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7500 Kg. In the present case, driver Aarif was driving the vehicle of light motor vehicle category unladen weight of which is less than 7500 kg. So, judgment of the tribunal for recovery of the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle is liable to be set aside. So, judgment of the learned tribunal for recovery of the amount from appellant Jamna Lal and driver Aarif is set aside.

¶54

MonthlyIncome	Rs.13,542
Annual Income	Rs.13,542 X 12=1,62,504/-
Since the deceased was 38 years of age,	Rs.1,62,504 X 15=24,37,560/-
multiplier of 15 should be applied
1/4 income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased	24,37,560 X 1/4=6,09,390/-
Add future prospects 50%	(24,37,560- 6,09,390=18,28,170/-) 18,28,170X50%=9,14,085
Mental Agony and suffering	1,00,000/-
Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
Total	28,57,255/-
Less amount awarded by	17,48,184/-

(6 of 6)

[CMA-1383/2012]

the Tribunal

Enhanced amount of Rs.28,57,255-17,48,184=11,09,071/compensation

¶59

In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.11,09,071/- as compensation. Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.11,09,071/- with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶60

Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged.

¶61

Consequently, both the appeals are allowed and judgment of the learned tribunal qua recovery of the amount from appellant Jamna Lal and driver Aarif is set aside. Impugned judgment is modified accordingly.

¶62

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶63

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶64

Brijesh 98-98.

Smt Santosh Arivnd and Others v. Arif Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Santosh Arivnd and Others v. Arif Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harji and Anr. Vs Smt Hema and Ors.

Kailash and Ors. Vs Nandram

Nagar Nigam Jaipur through Mayor Vs M/S Devsons Logistic Pvt. Ltd.

Jamna Lal Vs Santosh Arivnd and Others

Shrawan Lal S/O Late Shri Bhanwar Lal @ Bhuraram Vs Kaluram Meena S/O Shri Narayan Meena

Mahaveer Son of Shri Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan