Partly allowed

Anita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CMA/835/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed minor enhancement to compensation awarded in motor accident claim. Rejected higher income claim due to lack of documentary evidence, corrected consortium amount to grant Rs. 40,000 to each dependent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 13,93,000/- to Rs. 15,13,000/-; consortium award set at Rs. 40,000/- for each of the four appellants.

Anita Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 835/2023

¶4

Anita W/o Ranjit Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Mangra Ka Talab, Bhim, Tehsil And District Rajsamand

¶5

Toysha D/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 16 Years, Appellant is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Anita Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh r/o Mangra Ka Talab, Bhim, Tehsil And District Rajsamand

¶6

Falguni D/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 11 Years, Appellant is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Anita Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh r/o Mangra Ka Talab, Bhim, Tehsil And District Rajsamand

¶7

Sumitra Devi W/o Dilip Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Mangra Ka Talab, Bhim, Tehsil And District Rajsamand

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Jalwan Sadan Outside Chang Gate College Road, Tehsil Beawar Distrct Ajmer

¶11

Mahendra Singh S/o Udai Singh, R/o Rayta Kheda Rajiyawas, Tehsil Beawar District Ajmer

¶12

Dhanna Singh S/o Devi Singh, R/o Kumharon Ka Vaas, Shahpura, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Joshi

¶15

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶16

Judgment

¶17

19/01/2024

¶18

The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, in MACT Case no.183/2022(CIS No. 183/2022).

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

[CMA-835/2023]

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 02.02.2023 awarded a sum of Rs.13,93,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 23.03.2022.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimants with the submission that on 16.12.2021, Ranjeet Singh, while going from his village towards Godaji village, at about 01:30 PM, was hit by the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 36-T-1938 coming from Bhim, being owned by respondent no.2. It was submitted that the said vehicle was driven rashly and negligently on wrong side of the road by its driver (respondent No.1). As a result of the said accident, Ranjeet Singh sustained serious injuries and was taken to Bhim for treatment. On his condition having become critical, he was being shifted to private hospital at Ajmer but on the way to Ajmer, he succumbed to injuries. An FIR bearing no. 617/2021 qua the said incident was registered at PS, Bhim.

¶24

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

¶25

The appellants-claimants are wife, daughters and mother of deceased Ranjeet Singh. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,28,35,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.7000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,93,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants, the break-up of which is as under:

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

[CMA-835/2023]

1.	Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses(1/4th) in the monthlyincome of Rs. 7000/-)	Rs. 7350/-
2.	Loss of Annual Income(as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 15).	7350 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 13,23,000/-
3.	Under the head of ‘loss of estate’	Rs. 15000/-
4.	Under the head of ‘consortium’	Rs. 40000/-
5.	Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’	Rs. 15000/-
6	Total amount of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs. 13,93,000/-

¶30

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶31

Averring the compensation to be meagre, the claimantsappellants have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds: Firstly, a lumpsum amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- qua loss of consortium has been awarded whereas the same ought to have been granted to each of the dependents to the tune of Rs.44,000/ - in terms of the ratio as laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Secondly , the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month on basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident whereas the same ought to have been considered on basis of his actual income per month as the deceased was a conductor earning Rs.15,000/- per month, which fact was very well proved on record.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- insurance company submits that the judgment/award passed by the learned

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

[CMA-835/2023]

Tribunal is totally in consonance with law and no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is made out.

¶37

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

¶38

On the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.7000/- per month as per the minimum wages prevailing at that point of time, this Court is of the opinion that it is clear on record that although the appellants-claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month but apart from the statement of PW 1 Anita (wife of deceased), they have not produced any documentary evidence and hence failed to prove income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd; (2011) 10 SCC 683 observed that in absence of other cogent evidence, the Court should determine the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning by taking minimum wages payable to a worker at the relevant time as notional income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, while applying minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident, has rightly determined the income of deceased to be Rs.7,000/per month.

¶40

Coming on the ground of the amount payable under the head of ‘loss of consortium‘, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

[CMA-835/2023]

compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Meaning thereby, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ as, as per the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, ‘loss of consortium’ ought to be granted to each dependent.

¶45

So far as the applicability of 10% increment in the said amount is concerned, the accident in question being of 16.12.2021 and three years having not been complete, the same would not apply.

¶46

In view of the above analysis, the amount under the conventional heads deserves to be modified as under:

¶47

Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/- ;

¶48

Loss of consortium: Rs.40,000/ - to each dependent;

¶49

Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/- .

¶50

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, in MACT Case no.183/2022 (CIS No.183/2022) is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation :

¶51

1.	Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/4th in the monthlyincome of Rs. 7000/-)	Rs. 7350/-
2.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased [39-40 years], multiplier of 15).	7350 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 13,23,000/-
3.	Under the head of ‘loss of estate	Rs. 15000/-
4.	Under the head of ‘consortium’	Rs. 40000/- each to appellant Nos.1,2,3 & 4 Total: Rs. 160000/-

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3171]

[CMA-835/2023]

5.	Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’	Rs. 15000/-
6.	Total amount of compensation	Rs.15,13,000/-
7.	Amount awarded byTribunal.	Rs. 13,93,000
8.	Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.15,13,000/- - Rs. 13,93,000/- ------------------
		Rs. 1,20,000/-

¶56

The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not deposited yet) and enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.

¶57

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶58

96-SPhophaliya/-

Anita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Anil Vs Ali Mohd. and Anr.

Hajari Lal Vs Govind Prasad

Ranjeet Singh Vs Tata Aig General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bheriya

Poonaram Vs Cholamandalam Ms Genral Ins. Co. Ltd.

Smt. Usha and Ors. Vs Ghansyam Deora and Ors.