Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Kali and Others

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2023CMA/779/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.5,10,000 compensation for death. Upholding the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and multiplier, the Court held the award was reasonable and found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company was dismissed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kali and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:29324]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 779/2015

¶4

United India Insurance Co., Regional Office Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Constituted Attorney.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Kali W/o Late Shri Rawatsingh, By Caste Rawat, R/o Vill. Naharpura, Teh. And District Ajmer.

¶8

Rawatsingh S/o Shri Beejasingh, By Caste Rawat, R/o Vill. Naharpura, Teh. And District Ajmer.

¶9

Kumari Nena D/o Shri Rawatsingh, By Caste Rawat, R/o Vill. Naharpura, Teh. And District Ajmer.

¶10

Kumari Maina D/o Shri Rawatsingh, By Caste Rawat, R/o Vill. Naharpura, Teh. And District Ajmer.

¶11

Kumari Priya D/o Shri Rawatsingh, By Caste Rawat Claimants-Respondent No. 3 To 5 Are Being Minor Th, R/o Vill. Naharpura, Teh. And District Ajmer.

¶12

Bhairudan S/o Shri Radhakishan, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Vill. Doomada, Via Saradhana, Police Station Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer. Driver Of Tractor No. Rj-01Ra-3086

¶13

Smt. Rumka Devi W/o Shri Radhakishan, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Vill. Doomada, Via Saradhana, Police Station Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer. Owner Of Tractor No. Rj-01Ra-3086

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh for Mr. J. P. Gupta

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶17

Order

¶18

21/09/2023

¶19

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant –

¶20

Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

[2023:RJ-JP:29324]

[CMA-779/2015]

(2 of 4)

1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2015 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.141/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-.

¶25

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants, claiming Rs.35,68,000/- as compensation on account of death of Pradhan Singh under various heads.

¶26

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed to quash and set aside the judgment and award.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident. The deceased was walking on the road negligently and hit by another vehicle and thus, the accident occurred.

¶28

Learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased – Pradhan Singh, as Rs.6000/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence and there was no evidence regarding future prospects of the deceased. To prove the age of the deceased - Pradhan Singh, no document was produced by the claimants.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and argued that there is no force in the appeal hence, it be dismissed.

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:29324]

[CMA-779/2015]

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

¶34

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company regarding assessment of daily income of the deceased – Pradhan Singh is concerned, the learned Tribunal, in absence of any proof of income of the deceased by doing the work of animal husbandary, has assessed his income to be Rs.30,000/per annum as notional income, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not on higher side.

¶35

Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680 and looking to the age of the deceased as 15 years on the date of incident, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15.

¶36

Under the head of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- to each of the claimants, which is also not on higher side, as per the judgment of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Anr. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,

¶37

It seems that learned Tribunal, for the death of deceased – Pradhan Singh, has not awarded the compensation on a very higher side. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference in this regard.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:29324]

[CMA-779/2015]

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors : Civil Appeal No.7137/2013 and in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 , the learned Tribunal has granted fair and reasonable compensation to the claimants @ Rs.5,10,000/- due to death of Pradhan Singh, which in the opinion of this Court is also not on higher side.

¶42

The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos.1 to 4 elaborately discussed the evidence and awarded a ‘just compensation’. The findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are based on legally sound reasoning, with which I fully concur.

¶43

The learned Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the claim petition and awarded reasonable compensation to the claimants.

¶44

In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed.

¶45

The present appeal is thus, dismissed.

¶46

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶47

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶48

A. ARORA /-30.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Kali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Kali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfaraj and Ors. Vs Mojiram and Ors.

Babita and Others Vs Talib and Others

Manju Devi Vs Narayan Ram and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Kishan Mehta and Ors.

Smt Anop Devi and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Gupta Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.