Dismissed

R.G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Jagdish Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2023CMA/2563/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed both appeals. The Insurance Company appealed against liability due to alleged driver license violations, while claimants sought enhanced compensation. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to clarify that 'light motor vehicles' include appropriate transport vehicles and that deductions for personal expenses are generally mandatory. However, the Court found the Tribu

What did the court decide?

Both S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2563/12 by the Insurance Company and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 133/13 by the claimants were dismissed.

R.G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Jagdish Kumar and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/003912]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2563/2012

¶4

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Authorised Officer, 'Maker Tower' Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Insurance Company).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jagdish Kumar s/o Narayanlal b/c Prajapat aged about 20 years by profession student r/o Pindwada Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi.

¶8

Mahesh Kumar s/o Narayanlal b/c Prajapat aged about 22 years by profession student r/o Pindwada Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi.

¶9

Fency Kumari d/o Narayanlal b/c Prajapat aged about 25 years by profession household work r/o Pindwada Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi.

¶10

Kailash Kumar s/o Narayanlal b/c Prajapat aged about 27 years by profession business r/o Pindwada Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi.

¶11

Narayanlal s/o Veesaram b/c Prajapat aged about 54 years by profession serive work r/o Pindwada Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi.

¶12

Premaram s/o Sujaji b/c Ghanchi aged adult by profession business r/o Nandiya Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Owner and Driver of the Vehicle).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 133/2013

¶16

Jagdish Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Lal, aged about 21 years

¶17

Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Lal, aged about 23 years

¶18

Fanshi Kumari D/o Shri Narayan Lal, aged about 26 years

¶19

Kailash Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Lal aged about 27 years

¶20

Narayan Lal S/o Shri Veesa Ram, aged about 54 years All appellants No.1 to 5 are residents of Pindwada, Tehsil Pindwada District Sirohi.

¶21

----Appellants

¶22

Versus

¶23

Shri Prema Ram S/o Shri Suja Ghanchi, Resident of Nandiya, Tehsil Pindwada District Sirohi. (owner & Driver)

(2 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/003912]

[CMA-2563/2012]

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorised Officer, Maker Tower, Nityanandnagar, Queen Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. (Insurance Company)

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prashant Panwar

¶30

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶31

Judgment

¶32

03/02/2023

¶33

The present appeals arise out of the award dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal'), whereby compensation of Rs.4,17,000/- along with interest @ 6% has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

¶34

The case of the claimants is that Smt. Badami Devi expired as a result of the injuries sustained by her on 8.5.2010 when she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by her son Shri Kailash Kumar. The said motorcycle was hit by one 'Pick-up' No.RJ-16-GA-0623 which was coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the deceased falling on the road and expiring on the spot.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2563/2012 has been preferred by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company') and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.133/2013 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

(3 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/003912]

[CMA-2563/2012]

The main ground raised by the Insurance Company is that the driver was driving a 'Pick-Up' which is a transport vehicle whereas he was having a Driving Licence for driving a 'Light Motor vehicle (LMV)' only and the same was clearly in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

So far as the issue whether 'Light Motor Vehicle' would include a 'Transport Vehicle' is concerned, the same is no more res integra in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; (2017) 14 SCC 663.

¶41

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

¶42

"(i) " Light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994.

¶43

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form."

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/003912]

[CMA-2563/2012]

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation is just and correct and cannot be interfered with.

¶48

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in firstly computing the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month without any evidence available on record and secondly in not deducting 1/3^rd of the income qua the personal expenses.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in computing the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month only whereas it ought to have been calculated to minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Lata wadhwa

¶50

& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors; AIR 2001 SC 3218.

¶51

This Court is of the specific opinion that in terms of the settled proposition of law, deduction of 1/3^rd income qua the personal expenses is a mandate even in view of the later pronouncements in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; AIR 2017 SC 5157. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that no deduction qua the personal expenses is to be made cannot be upheld and is therefore, set aside.

¶52

It is relevant to note that the present was a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, and therefore, no compensation qua the future prospects was to be considered.

(5 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/003912]

[CMA-2563/2012]

In this background, this Court proceed on to compute the compensation keeping in consideration the income @ Rs.3,000/per month. The amount of compensation vide the said calculation comes to an amount less than Rs.4,17,000/-, which is the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court finds it appropriate neither to reduce the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal nor to enhance the same. The said consideration has also been made in view of the fact that the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal had been deposited and disbursed to the claimants way back as the stay petition preferred by the Insurance Company was rejected on 29.01.2013.

¶57

In view of the above observations, both the appeals-S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2563/12 preferred by the Insurance Company as well as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.133/13 preferred by the claimants are dismissed.

¶58

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶59

69-70Vij/-

R.G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Jagdish Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Jagdish Kumar 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

Jayanti Lal Bhansali Vs Kailash Chandra Mehta

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamla Devi Alias Kmaa

Jayanti Lal Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar and Ors. Vs Prema Ram and Anr.

Roopa Vs Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

Kanchan Kanwar Vs Parbat Singh