Allowed

Smt.Punji and Ors. v. Ganapat Lal Labana and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2023CMA/203/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court held that married daughters claiming as legal representatives are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. The court enhanced the award from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 2,07,044 including interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the Tribunal's award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,07,044/- including interest.

Smt.Punji and Ors. Vs Ganapat Lal Labana and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:33141]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 203/2005

¶4

Smt.Punji D/o Sh. Kachara W/o Sh. Hoorji, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Padatamana, District Banswara (Rajasthan) 2. Smt. Laxmi D/o Sh. Kachara W/o Sh. Valji, aged 25 years R/o Village Dhole Sadan, District Banswara (Rajasthan) 3. Smt. Shanta D/o Sh. Kachara W/o Sh. Partha@ Pratap, aged 22 years, R/o Village Padatamana, District Banswara (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ganapat Lal Labana s/o Sh. Bhura lal Labana, r/o Village Tanda Mangala, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara.

¶8

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Opposite Kushalbagh Maidan, Banswara.

¶9

Prakash Chandra Patel s/o Sh. Maganlal Patel, R/o Village Veerpur, District Banswara

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Trivedi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Kaushik

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Judgment

¶14

05/10/2023

¶15

The instant civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.09.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case no. 173/2002 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called; “MV Act”) was allowed in part and they were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:33141]

[CMA-203/2005]

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 11.05.2002, the deceased Smt. Kama was going to her village Madali when a motorcycle bearing no. RJ-03/3 M 4163 being driven by respondent no. 3 came from behind and hit her. The deceased sustained severe injuries and thereafter, she died. A claim application was filed by the claimants which was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded to claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a meager compensation of lumpsum amount Rs. 60,000/-. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the evidence with respect to income and age of the deceased were duly proved, but the learned Tribunal did not pass the impugned award in accordance with the material available on record. Learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the claimants are married daughters and hence not dependent on the deceased. It is submitted that this finding of the learned Tribunal is against the settled principles of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. v. Somwati and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0674/2020. Lastly, it was prayed that the impugned judgment and award may be modified and compensation may be enhanced.

¶21

(3 of 4) [CMA-203/2005]

¶22

[2023:RJ-JD:33141]

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and calls for no interference.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

I have gone through the judgment of learned Tribunal. In para 12 of the impugned judgment, it has been held that since the claimants were married daughters who were dependent on their husbands, they were not dependent on the their deceased mother. Therefore, they are not entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. However, looking to the age of deceased at the time of death (65 years) and the emotional trauma that the daughters had to go through due to death of their mother, the Tribunal awarded Rs 60,000/- as compensation.

¶26

It is a settled law that legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. It is immaterial whether they were dependent on the deceased or not. Thus, I deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation is as represented in the tabular form below:

¶27

		Total
Loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000x3	Rs. 1,20,000/-
Funeral Expenses		Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate		Rs. 15,000/-
Total (A)		Rs. 1,50,000/-
Amount already paid (B)		Rs. 60,000
Remaining amount to be paid	C=(A-B)	Rs. 90,000/-

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:33141]

[CMA-203/2005]

Interest @6% (D)		Rs. 1,17,044/-
Total amount to be paid	C+D	Rs. 2,07,044/-

¶32

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.04.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the appellants claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,07,044/- including interest

¶33

All the interlocutory applications, as well as the stay application, if any stands disposed accordingly.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶36

12-CPG/-

Smt.Punji and Ors. v. Ganapat Lal Labana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Punji and Ors. v. Ganapat Lal Labana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Bihari Lal Vs Nathu Singh

Jagga Vs Nathu Singh

Devendra Singh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar

Asst. Commissioner Anti Evasion Vs M/S Golyan India Leasing and Finance Co.

Geedha Ram and Anr. Vs Omprakash and Anr.