Partly allowed

Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava and Ors. v. Bablu Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CMA/2670/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.47,44,130 for death in a road accident. The High Court held the insurer liable only to pay first with right to recover from owner and driver absent permit, recomputed compensation using multiplier 11, 15% future prospects and revised conventional amounts, enhancing it by Rs.17,04,113.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.17,04,113 with 6% interest payable by insurer within two months, recoverable from owner and driver.

Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava and Ors. Vs Bablu Singh and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2153/2017

¶4

The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office Jeevan Nidhi Second Floor, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Through Its Constituted Attorney.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Sangeeta Srivastav W/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastav, aged 46 years

¶8

Sareshth Kumar Srivastav S/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastav, aged 21 years, Through Attorney Holder – Mother Smt. Sangeeta Srivastav

¶9

Vishesh Kumar Srivastav S/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastav, aged 19 years,

¶10

All Residents of 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil Lines, District Ajmer.

¶11

….Claimants/Respondents

¶12

Bablu Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, R/o 78, Pokhariyon Ki Dhani, Hokra, Via Pushkar, District Ajmer. Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-01-Ga-7354

¶13

Navratan Maheshwari S/o Shri Sita Ram Maheshwari, By Caste Masheshwari, R/o 138, L.i.c. Colony, Vaishali Nagar, District Ajmer. Registered Owner Of Vehicle.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2670/2017

¶17

Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava W/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 48 years,

¶18

Shreshtha Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 21 years,, Through Power of attorney holder and mother Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava

¶19

Vishesh Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 19 years, All Resident of 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil Lines, Distt. Ajmer

¶20

----Appellants

¶21

Bablu Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, 78, Pokhriyon Ki

Versus

(2 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

[CMA-2153/2017]

Dhani, Hokra Via Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-01-Ga-7354

¶27

Navratna Maheshwari S/o Shri Sitaram Maheshwari, B/c Maheshwari, 138, L.i.c. Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Distt. Ajmer Registered Owner Of Vehicle

¶28

National Insurance Company Limited, Through Local Branch Manager, Local Branch Office Near Punjab National Bank, Kachhari Road, Ajmer Raj.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary, Adv. for Insurance Company.
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Rekha Jain, Adv. for Claimants Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. for Owner
		Mr. Ravi Singh, Adv. for Mr. Jai
		Prakash Gupta, Adv.

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶32

Judgment

¶33

DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/02/2024

¶34

The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.528/14 titled as “Sangeeta Srivastav & Ors. Vs. Bablu Singh & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.47,44,130/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.09.14 as compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants (for short’ the claimants’) and the Insurance Company and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in CMA No.2153/2017 have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.

[CMA-2153/2017]

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

(3 of 7)

CMA No.2153/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.2670/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2153/2017 :-Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that judgment dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Tribunal is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and against the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal had not considered the arguments advanced by the Insurance Company that neither the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license nor the vehicle in question was being plight with valid and effective route permit. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that Insurance Company got served the notice through its counsel (Ex.NA.3/2) for producing the permit but no such permit was produced. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance Company also adduced the evidence of NAW-1-Rajendra Chawla. So, the Tribunal wrongly hold the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be set aside.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 1768 and (2) National Insurance

(4 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

[CMA-2153/2017]

Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.6178-6179/2004 decided on 21.09.2004 .

¶45

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2670/2017 -Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly applied two multipliers for determination of compensation; one till date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement, it is erroneous. At the time of accident, the deceased was about 54 years of age, so, multiplier of 11 should be applied. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it should be 1/4th. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal awarded a very meagre amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium to claimant No.1, Rs.10,000/- to each claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimants. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted the amount regarding income tax and surcharge. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

¶46

Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Valli Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR online 2022 SC 158 .

(5 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

[CMA-2153/2017]

Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submits that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication regarding permit of the vehicle.

¶51

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶52

It is an admitted position that no permit was submitted during the trial. The Insurance Company had got served the notice to Navratan Maheshwari, who is owner of the vehicle to produce the permit but said owner had not submitted the permit and had not adduced any evidence to the effect that he had the valid permit of the offending vehicle. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company for paying the amount of compensation to the claimants. As per the pronouncement of judgment relied by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company; Insurance Company should first pay the amount of compensation and then it has right to recover the same. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be modified accordingly.

¶53

The Tribunal had wrongly determined the compensation by applying two multipliers; one till date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement. The deceased age was about 54 years at the time of accident, so, multiplier of 11 should be applied. The Tribunal had not granted any amount towards the future prospects. Since, the deceased was a Government Servant (Permanent Job) and he was about 54 years of age at the time of

(6 of 7)

[CMA-2153/2017]

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

accident, claimants are entitled to get 15% amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/towards the loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.10,000/to each claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimants. The Tribunal had also wrongly awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as

¶58

under:-

¶59

Monthly income	Rs.90,066/-
Annual Income	90,066X12=10,80,792/-
According to the age of the deceased, Multiplier 11 to be applied	10,80,792 X 11=1,18,88,712/-
1/3 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased	1,18,88,712 – 39,62,904/- = 79,25,808/-
Since, the deceased was a Government Servant and his age was determined about 54 years, add 15% towards future prospects	79,25,808+11,88,871/- = 91,14,679.2/- (round off Rs.91,14,679/-)
Less 30% Income Tax and 3% surcharge	91,14,679/- - 28,16,436/- (27,34,404+82,032/-) = 62,98,243/-
Loss of consortium to claimants No. 1 to 3(40,000 X 3)	Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral expenses (+)	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.64,48,243/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.47,44,130/-
Enhanced Amount of compensation	64,48,243 – 47,44,130=

¶60

(7 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]

¶61

[2024:RJ-JP:8275]

¶62

Rs.17,04,113/-

¶63

The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.17,04,113/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.17,04,113/(64,48,243 – 47,44,130) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶64

In the result, appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants are partly allowed.

¶65

Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶66

Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly.

¶67

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶68

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶69

Jatin /175-176

Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava and Ors. v. Bablu Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava and Ors. v. Bablu Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balmukund Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohammad Tohid

Punama Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish S/O Mana Vs Shri Rajneesh S/O Shri Banshilal Kumawat

Sabara @ Sayra W/O Rafiq Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitashwa Kumar Meena S/O Harish Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan