Partly allowed

Dakhi Bai v. S.M. Murugesan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CMA/652/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows two connected appeals. In the owner's appeal, liability was shifted to the insurer as the vehicle was non-transport. In the claimants' appeal, the compensation was enhanced by recomputing income deduction and applying the Sarla Verma multiplier, directing the insurer to pay the total amount.

What did the court decide?

The Insurance Company directed to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,47,576/- including interest at 6% p.a., appellant owner exempted from liability.

Dakhi Bai Vs S.M. Murugesan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/002894]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1149/2020

¶4

S.m. Murugesan S/o Muttusamy, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village - Aera, Kandampalayam, District Jamkkal (Tamil Nadu ) (Owner)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dakhi Bai W/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. - Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶8

Shanti Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. - Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶9

Fateh Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. - Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶10

Kupuswami S/o Laxman Swami, B/c Acharya, R/o 82, Prap Road, Erode (Tamil Nadu) (Driver)

¶11

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 146/n, 2Nd Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal (Tamil Nadu) (Insurer)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 652/2021

¶15

Dakhi Bai W/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 54 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶16

Shanti Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶17

Fateh Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶18

----Appellants

¶19

Versus

¶20

S.m. Murugesan S/o Muttusawy, Village Aera Kandamapalayam, Dis. Jamkkal (Tamil Nadu)

¶21

Kupuswami S/o Laxman Swami, 82, Prap Road, Erode (Tamil Nadu)

¶22

Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited 146/n, 2Nd Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal (Tamil Nadu)

----Respondents

(2 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/002894]

[CMA-1149/2020]

For their respective	: Mr.	Manish Pitalia
parties	Mr.	Nikhil Ajmera
	Mr.	Sumit Singhal
	: Mr.	TRS Sodha

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶29

Order

¶30

DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/2/2023

¶31

(IA No.01/21 IN SBCMA No.1149/2020)

¶32

The matter comes up on an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking the document on record.

¶33

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the document – Information under Section 6(1) & 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 issued by the Assistant Information Officer and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central) is taken on record.

¶34

CMA No.1149/2020

¶35

The present misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-owner against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to learned Tribunal for short) in Motor Accident Claim No.311/2017 (57/16), whereby the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation and directed the appellant-owner to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,28,128/- to the claimants.

(3 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/002894]

[CMA-1149/2020]

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has held the appellant-owner liable to pay the compensation amount only on the ground that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. However, in view of the documents i.e. Information under Section 6(1) & 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 issued by the Assistant Information Officer and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central) placed on record, it is clear that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle being non-transport vehicle for which no permit is required, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant-owner liable to indemnify the claimants of the award amount.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. He therefore prays that no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶41

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the offending vehicle being non-transport vehicle for which no permit is required, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-owner cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants of the award amount.

¶42

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the MACT, Pratapgarh is modified with a direction to the respondentInsurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants.

(4 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/002894]

[CMA-1149/2020]

CMA No.652/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by MACT, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No. 311/2017 (CIS No.57/16), whereby the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,28,128/- in their favour on account of the death of Mohan Lal in the accident, which occurred on 19.11.2015.

¶48

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has not computed the award in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and therefore, very less amount has been awarded in this case.

¶49

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6030/- per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/2 of his income towards personal and living expenses, whereas the deceased was a married person and has left behind his wife and two children, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have taken the deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/2 in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 12 .

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has decided the claim petition of the

(5 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/002894]

[CMA-1149/2020]

appellants-claimants on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. He further submits that the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal while calculating the compensation in the present case does not suffer from any error. He submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the family members of the deceased in this case can easily be said to be ‘just compensation’. He, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the learned tribunal has wrongly deducted the monthly income to the tune of 1/2.

¶55

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 17.12.2019, as well as other relevant record of the case.

¶56

It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6030/- per month. The deceased was a married person and has left behind his wife and two children therefore, the Tribunal should have taken the deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/2 in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) .

¶57

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount is required to be recomputed in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). The same is recomputed as under:-

¶58

For future prospects :- 10% of Rs.6030 (Income of deceased)	Rs.603/- per month
Add: 6030/- + Rs.603/-	Rs. 6633/-
Deduction on account of deceased being marriedperson- 1/3rd x 6633=2211	a Rs. 6633- 2211 = Rs. 4422/-

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/002894]

[CMA-1149/2020]

The age of deceased was 60 years therefore, a multiplier of 09 will be used in view of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

¶63

(I)	Compensation due to loss of income by using multiplier of 09.	Rs.4422x12x09	Rs. 4,77,576/-
(II)	For the Loss of Estate & fun	eral expenses	Rs. 30,000/-
(III)	For Loss of Consortium		Rs. 40,000/-
		Total (I+II+III)	Rs. 5,47,576/-
	Amount awarded by the Tri	bunal	Rs. 4,28,128/-
	Enh	anced amount	Rs. 1,19,448/-

¶64

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶65

As the connected appeal preferred by the appellant-owner has been allowed and it has been held that the Insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants, therefore, the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the total amount of compensation (already ordered by the tribunal and enhanced amount by this Court) in favour of the appellants-claimants within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that the amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the same is paid.

¶66

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶67

136-1/-

Dakhi Bai v. S.M. Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakhi Bai v. S.M. Murugesan

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

Samir @ Saniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India and Ors. Vs M/S Dhrulin Excavation and Contractor

Rakeya Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Singh Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Dhiraj Kumar

Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Hanumana Ram