Partly allowed

Smt Pushpa Sharma and Othrs v. Abdul Razzak and Others

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2024CMA/2409/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Bench disposed of an appeal against an accident compensation award. The High Court found the Tribunal's award on loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses inadequate. It modified the award, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 19,35,000 to Rs. 21,10,920, including specific heads for loss of estate and consortium, and clarified the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified; the claimants are awarded Rs. 21,10,920/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, to be adjusted against am

Smt Pushpa Sharma and Othrs Vs Abdul Razzak and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:33738]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2409/2012

¶4

Smt. Pushpa Sharma wife of late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged about 30 years

¶5

Kumari Sudha daughter of late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged about 11 years

¶6

Kumari Renu daughter of late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged 9 years

¶7

Bittu son of late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged 7 years, ( The appellant Nos.2 to 4 are minor through their natural mother Pushpa Sharma.

¶8

Shri Ram Sahay Ji Sharma son of late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged 65 years.

¶9

All residents of 103, Bhagwati Nagar-1, Kartarpura, Jaipur

¶10

----Claimants-Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Abdul Razzak son of Shri _____ aged 26 years, resident of Thana Tehsil Firozpur Police Station Kunhana District Gudgaov (Haryana) Driver Vehicle No.RJ 02 G 4180 (died in accident)

¶13

Shri Parveen Kapoor son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of Plot No.218, Lazpat Nagar, Scheme No.2, Alwar (Owner of Truck)

¶14

United India Insurance Company through its Legal Cell, Top of Khadi Bhandar, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Policy issuer) Division Office Ashoka Nagar, Alwar

¶15

(Policy No.140100/31/021/11/02022/1998 Term of Insurance 04.10.1998 to 03.10.1999.

¶16

----Non-claimants-Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, Advocate with Ms. Seema Shekhar, Advocate

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Parihar, Advocate, Mr. Sagar Jindgal, Advocate & Ms. Renu Goyal, Advocate

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶20

07/08/2024 :

¶21

Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the impugned judgment & award dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Court of Motor

[2024:RJ-JP:33738]

[CMA-2409/2012]

(2 of 4)

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. No.454/1999 titled as Smt. Pushpa Sharma Vs, Shri Abdul Razzak & Others , whereby ld. Tribunal had allowed the claim petition & awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.19,35,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants on account of death of one Dinesh Chandra Sharma, in a road accident took place on 30.01.1999.

¶26

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the claimantsappellants are that the ld. Tribunal had earlier passed a final award of Rs.12,86,000/- in favour of claimants-appellants. Against the aforesaid final award, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1304/2000 was filed & the same was decided on 30.06.2011 with the direction to remand back the matter to ld. Tribunal for reconsideration of Issue No.4. The ld. Tribunal decided the said matter vide its order dt.12.01.2012 & enhanced the award amount to Rs.19,35,000/-. The earlier award i.e. of Rs.12,86,000/- was adjusted in the enhanced award of Rs.19,35,000/& the claimants-appellants were held entitled to get remaining difference amount of Rs.6,49,000/- with interest. Further submission is that while computing compensation, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ & ‘funeral expenses’ have not been taken into consideration properly & overall assessment of the compensation is too low, highly unreasonable and against well settled law governing quantum of compensation. The interest awarded to the tune of @ 6% per annum is inadequate and the claimants are liable to get 18% interest on the awarded money. Hence, the present appeal may be allowed and the award amount be enhanced suitably.

¶27

In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the

[2024:RJ-JP:33738]

[CMA-2409/2012]

(3 of 4)

case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- & Rs.15,000/respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

¶32

Further relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company & Others Vs. Somwati & Others, MANU/SC/0674/2020, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, contends that the parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/ insurance-company justified the compensation, so awarded to the claimants-appellants under the various heads and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at bar, gone through the judgment & award passed by ld. Tribunal & the material made available on record as well as the judgments cited herein above.

¶35

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others, 2009 (2) TAC (SC), ld. Tribunal had already awarded Rs.12,53,920/- towards ‘loss of income’ and 50% thereof i.e. Rs.6,27,000/- towards ‘future prospectus’, which is reasonable. The ld. Tribunal had further awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘loss of consortium’ (Rs.10,000/- to each) & Rs.4080/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, which is inadequate.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:33738]

[CMA-2409/2012]

In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Somwati (supra) the claimants-appellants are also entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/- each as ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/- as ‘funeral expenses’.

¶40

On the basis of the aforesaid facts & analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimants-appellants under the aforesaid heads ought to have been as under:-

¶41

1.	Loss of Income	=	Rs.12,53,920/-
2.	Future Prospectus	=	Rs.6,27,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium	=	Rs.2,00,000/-(Rs.40,000/- each)
4.	Loss of Estate	=	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Funeral Expenses	=	Rs.15,000/-.

¶42

Total Rs.21,10,920/-

¶43

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 12.01.2012 is liable to be modified as above and the claimants-appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.21,10,920/- instead of Rs.19,35,000/- alongwith interest 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition as per the terms of the Tribunal. The compensation amount received by the claimants-appellants in pursuant to the award dt.12.01.2012 passed by ld. Tribunal shall be adjusted in the present judgment & award and the claimants-appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount.

¶44

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶45

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶46

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶47

ASHOK/

Smt Pushpa Sharma and Othrs v. Abdul Razzak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa Sharma and Othrs v. Abdul Razzak 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

Thapar Concast Limited Vs Vijay Kaushik S/O Shri Rajbal Kaushik

Prabhu Dayal Sharma through Lrs Vs Hari Ram Meena through Lrs and Others

Bharat Singh Yadav S/O Shri Ramniwas @ Ramdayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh S/O Shri Pooran Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhara Singh S/O Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Saurabh Singh S/O Shri Devendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan