Disposed

Smt. Bhudei and Ors. v. Bhnawar Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2024CMA/1130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals in a fatal motor accident claim concerning quantum of compensation. The High Court applied Supreme Court guidelines on future prospects, deduction, multiplier and conventional heads, enhanced compensation from Rs.9,89,000 to Rs.12,74,400 with interest at 6% per annum, and modified the Tribunal award accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.9,89,000/- to Rs.12,74,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a.; enhancement of Rs.2,85,400/-; amounts already paid to be adjusted; no order as to costs.

Smt. Bhudei and Ors. Vs Bhnawar Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 962/2014

¶4

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its legally constituted authority, Regional Office, Sun Tower, Pal Road, Jodhpur

¶5

----Appellant (Non-Applicant No.3)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.Smt. Bhudei W/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh

¶8

2.Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh S/o Shri Kailashi

¶9

Mst. Satyawati D/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh

¶10

Manvendra S/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh (Minor)

¶11

Mst. Suman D/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh (Minor) Minors are represented through their natural guardian father Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh.

¶12

All by caste Jat, residents of Village & post Rithoti, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, presently residing at 6-B, shiv shakti colony, 8^th Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶13

----Claimaints

¶14

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bajrang Singh Rajput, resident of Dayalpura, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Driver)

¶15

Mayurdwaj Singh S/o Shri Bhupat Singh Baghela, resident of Gopi Hotel Compund, House No.8, near Fazalpur Tubewell, Baroda, presently residing at D-15, Rajpath Society, near Shazanand Flats, Old Padra Road, Baroda (Owner)

¶16

-----Non-Claimaints No.1 and 2

¶17

Connected With

¶18

(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1130/2014

¶19

1.Smt. Bhudei W/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh, aged about 60 years

¶20

2.Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh S/o Shri Kailashi, aged about 62 years 3. Mst. Satyawati D/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh, aged about 21 years

¶21

Manvendra S/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh, aged about 16 years 5. Mst. Suman D/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh, aged about 11 years

¶22

6.Smt Dropa w/o late shri Kailashi (Deceased, name deleted) Appellant-claimaint Nos.4 and 5 are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Bhudei W/o Sh. Bhika Singh @ Bhikam Singh. All by caste Jat, residents of Village & post Rithoti, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, presently residing at 6-B, shiv shakti colony, 8^th Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶23

----Claimants

¶24

Versus

¶25

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bajrang Singh Rajput, resident of Dayalpura, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Driver Tanker No.GJ6-TT8548)

¶26

Mayurdwaj Singh S/o Shri Bhupat Singh Baghela, resident of Gopi Hotel Compound, House No.8, near Fazalpur Tubewell, Baroda, presently residing at D-15, Rajpath Society, near Shazanand Flats, Old Padra Road, Baroda (Owner Tanker No.GJ6-TT-8548)

¶27

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, 12^th Residency Road Jodhpur (Insurer Tanker No.GJ6-TT-8548)

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]	(2 of 8)	[CMA-962/2014]
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SK Sankhla Mr. Kishan Bansal

¶30

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

¶31

25/07/2024

¶32

These two appeals have been preferred by the appellant/nonapplicant-Insurance Company and the appellants/claimants respectively under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the legality and validity of judgment/award dated 26.03.2014 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur in MAC Case No.422/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and has awarded a sum of Rs.9,89,000/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. and the liability to pay the said amount has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶33

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.62,29,000/- on account of death of their son in the accident, which occurred on 17.03.2011. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 17.03.2011, deceased Maanpal Singh was going to Sirohi from Nachana, Jaisalmer on his Trailer RJ-19-GA-5757. At about 10 am, when he reached near Bera Sudhawala situated between Pali to Sanderao, a Tanker bearing Registration No.GJ6-TT-8548 came from the opposite side, being plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the trailer. Both the vehicles caught fire and as a result thereof, Maanpal Singh burnt in his vehicle and succumbed to death. The claimants in the claim petition alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the non-claimant/driver. An FIR was lodged at Police

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

[CMA-962/2014]

(3 of 8)

Station Sanderao, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against the driver.

¶38

The claimants/appellants have stated in their petition that the deceased was 16 years of age at the time of the accident and he used to drive 16 wheeled Trailer and was earning Rs 15,000/- monthly. The appellants/claimants were dependent on his income due to which they are now deprived. They were also deprived of love and affection, etc. 4. On behalf of non-claimants Nos.1 and 2, a reply to the claim petition was filed while denying the facts alleged in the claim petition. Regarding the facts of the accident, it has been stated that the driver non-claimant No.1 was driving his vehicle carefully whereas, the deceased was driving his vehicle carelessly, hence the accident occurred and the deceased Manpal Singh himself is responsible for the said accident and thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition for the above mentioned reasons.

¶39

The non-claimaint no.3 Insurance company, in its reply, submits that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured for the period from 05.11.2010 to 04.11.2011. The insurance company further stated that the insured did not inform the insurance company about the alleged accident and the said vehicle was being driven without any valid driving license by the owner. He, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition due to the above mentioned reasons. It was also alleged by the Insurance Company that the deceased was going on his Trailer and the same was plied by him rashly and negligently and that there was no fault of the driver. It was further alleged that at the time of accident, both the vehicles collided from opposite directions, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation was not of the insurance company.

(4 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

[CMA-962/2014]

As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed

¶44

four issues including relief, which inter-alia reads as under:

¶45

“1- आयादि�नाकं 17032011 कोसुबहके 10 00 बजेपालीसे साण्डेरावकीतरफजानेवालीआमसडकपरआयेहुऐबेरासुधावालाके सामनेसरह� (बिबरामीमेंनेशनलहाईवेनम्बर-14 परअ्ቚाቕኍ& संख्या01 केद्वारावाहनसख्याजी.जे.6-टीटी-8548 कोतेजगतितव लापरवाहीसेचलातेहुऐवाहनसंख्याआर.जे. 19.जीए.5757 के टक्करमारकर�ु्ቈ0टनाकारिरतकीजिजसकेपरिरणमास्वरूपवाहनमें सवारमानपालसिसहंपु्ቔ्ቦ ीभीकसिसहंउफ0 भीकमसिसहंकेगंम्भीरव साधारणचोटेंआनेसेउसकीमृत्युकारिरतहुई? 2- आया्ቚ ाቕኍ&गण / ाቕኍ& क्लेम्ቚ ाप्तकरनेकेअधिधकारीहैअगरहांतो किकतना वकिकससे? 3- आयाअ्ቚाቕኍ&गणकेद्वाराअपनेजवाबमेंउल्लेखिCतआधारोंकेबल परवे्ቌ तितपूतित0 केसिलऐ�ातियत्वाधीननहीहै? 4- अनुतोष"

¶46

In support of their claim petition, claimants examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Despite opportunity being granted to the non-claimants, no evidence was led by them.

¶47

The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the record of the case vide its judgment-cum-award dated 26.03.2014 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.9,89,000/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon non-claimant No.3 insurance company. Thus, the appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the award.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the issue with respect to quantum of compensation has not been decided properly. He submitted that the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month while driving the truck of Devi Singh (employer of the deceased) for the last two years and all the family members were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

[CMA-962/2014]

(5 of 8)

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has quantified the compensation while considering the income of the deceased at minimum wages at a paltry sum of Rs.8000/simply by relying upon the evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company. He also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses whereas, the deceased was looking after a big family and claimed 1/10th amount as a deduction.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding 50% compensation for future prospects of the deceased. In the instant case, the deceased was a young man aged 26 years and had a very long life ahead of him and therefore, looking to the future prospects of the deceased and longevity of life of the deceased, a monthly contribution of 100% of income of the deceased ought to have been determined by the learned Tribunal.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submits that the learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding meagre compensation on the head ‘Love and Affection’, funeral expenses, etc. and also awarded the compensation by applying multiplier of 15 instead of 17.

¶55

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relies upon various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as follows:-

¶56

(1) Sushila & Ors. Vs. Ramswaroop & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.3247/2023 decided on 01.05.2023.

¶57

(2) Kala Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.9972/2014 decided on 31.10.2014.

¶58

(3) Mohammad Siddiqui & Anr. Vs. National Insurance

¶59

Company : Civil Appeal No.79/2020 decided on 08.01.2020.

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

[CMA-962/2014]

(6 of 8)

Learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced at Bar by the appellants’ counsel and craves dismissal of the instant misc. appeal.

¶64

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶65

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶66

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 , this Court is of the opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to future prospects and consortium.

¶67

Since there is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case, both the counsel were directed to submit the calculation of the compensation awardable to the claimants, afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to future prospects to the extent of 40%, which is quantified as under:

¶68

Minimum wages 8,000/- (monthly income) x 40%= Rs.3,200/= Total Income = Rs.11,200/-x 12 x 17 (multiplier as per age) Rs.22,84,800/-

¶69

Deduction 1/2 = Rs.22,84,800/- x 1/2 = Rs.11,42,400/- as Total Loss of Income.

¶70

This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head Loss of Parental Consortium/love and affection, whereas, as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the same is also modified and re-quantified i.e.

(7 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:30474]

[CMA-962/2014]

Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 2), as per the calculation submitted by learned counsel for the parties.

¶75

This Court also finds that towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which is also on higher side, in view of various pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, the same deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the head ‘Funeral Expenses’ is also modified and the claimants shall be entitled to receive Rs.18,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’, as per the calculation submitted by learned counsel for the parties.

¶76

As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove and calculations submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are disposed of. The judgment/award impugned dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned MACT, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.422/2011, is modified accordingly and the appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,74,400/- instead of Rs.9,89,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and the amount to be enhanced is Rs.2,85,400/- . The afore-stated can be understood in the form of calculation which is reproduced as under:-

¶77

Age	26years
MonthlyIncome	Rs.8,000/-
Add-Future Prospect @ 40% asper age 26years	Rs.3,200/-
TOTAL INCOME	Rs.11,200/-
As per age of 26-30, multiplier is 17 and the dependents are mother and father	1/2 (50%) deduction.
Total loss of income Rs.11,200/- x 12 (annual inc (deduction)=Rs.11,42,400/-	ome) x 17 x 1/2
Add-Loss of Parental Consortium(Rs.48,000/- x 2)	Rs.96,000/-
Add-Funeral Expenses(Rs.18,000/-)	Rs.18,000/-
Add-Loss of estate(Rs.18,000/-)	Rs.18,000/-
TOTAL AWARD	Rs.12,74,400/ -