CMA NO.62/08 -National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.11.11.09
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.62/2008
against the judgment dt.21.9.2007 passed by
learned Judge, MACT Claim No.55/2006.
Date of order : 11th November, 2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. C.S. Kotwani for the respondent-claimant.
-------
BY THE COURT:-
1. Heard learned counsels.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the award dated 21.9.2007 of the MACT in
MACT Claim No.55/2006 for the death of one Ram Niwas, aged 25
years. The Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,65,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company
Mr. Jagdish Vyas submitted that the accident took place on 20.4.2004
CMA NO.62/08 -National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.11.11.09
2/5
at 10:45 PM while two persons Ram Niwas and Hastimal were
travelling on the motor cycle RJ 01-14 M-7925, the Marshal Jeep No.
RJ 10-C-2397 hit the said motor cycle from the back side and on
account of the said accident these two young persons lost their lives.
One Ajit, whose motor cycle was also hit by the same jeep, also later
on died in the hospital.
4. For the death of Ram Niwas, his father Hanuman Ram
filed claim petition No.55/2006 and claimed compensation of
Rs.29.51 lacs.
5. The learned Tribunal after discussing the relevant
evidence found that the accident had taken place on account of rash
and negligent driving by the respondent No.3 – Kishan Lal of the said
jeep and death of both these persons was caused by the said accident.
The deceased Ram Niwas was engaged in the business of some motor
mechanic shop doing the work of dynamos and was also doing the
work on the agricultural field of his father and other misc. jobs. The
Tribunal has taken the monthly income only at Rs.2,500/- for the said
deceased Ram Niwas and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal
expenditure, had applied the multiplier of 13 to arrive at the
compensation as aforesaid.
CMA NO.62/08 -National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.11.11.09
3/5
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
has raised two fold submissions; (i) that MTO report (inspection of
motor cycle) discloses that the front side of both motor cycles were
damaged whereas in claim petition and evidence before the Tribunal,
it came before the Tribunal that said motor cycles were hit from the
back side. He, therefore, raised a doubt over the happening of the
accident itself. (ii) Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company submitted that there was no cogent evidence for
arriving at monthly income of Rs.2,500/- for the said deceased Ram
Niwas since dependent was only his father, the deduction of 1/3rd of
the net income was also less and at least 50% deduction towards
personal expenditure ought to have been considered by the learned
Tribunal. He relied upon para 15 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. – MACD 2009 (SC) 353.
7. Both these contentions are vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the claimant, who submits that the Tribunal has
on the other hand erred in taking into account the monthly income
only Rs.2,500/- and has not taken into account any increase in the
future income of the said deceased, who died at young age of 25
years. He also submitted that the father being the only dependent
person and aged man of 55 years lost his only son and, therefore,
CMA NO.62/08 -National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.11.11.09
4/5
reduction of 1/3rd for his personal expenditure was sufficient. He also
submitted that the said son used to help dependent father in his
agricultural operations and, therefore, the compensation determined
by the learned Tribunal at Rs.2.65 lacs is rather minimal and does not
require any reduction at the instance of insurance company in the
present appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsels at length and perused the
judgment cited at the Bar. This Court finds no force in the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company. As far as the finding of accident is concerned, merely
because of the damage shown is on the front side of the motor cycle,
it does not disprove the happening of the accident itself. Admittedly
the said jeep insured with the appellant-insurance company was being
driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.3 – Kishan
Lal, his statements before the Tribunal are of shaky nature and have
been found to be prima facie tissues of lies. Having caused the
accident on the spot, he did not even take care to take the injured
persons to the hospital, who admittedly died on account of the said
accident. The finding of the Tribunal that claimants have proved the
accident with the help of oral evidence of at least 3 witnesses has not
been rebutted by the insurance company in any manner. The damage
to the motor cycle and MTO report could be caused even after such
CMA NO.62/08 -National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Shri Hanuman Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.11.11.09
5/5
motor cycles were hit from the back side. Therefore, this finding
does not require any interference.
9. As far as compensation amount is concerned, this Court
is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.2.65 lacs arrived at by
the Tribunal after taking the net monthly income of Rs.2,500/- is
rather conservative or minimum as the young man of 25 years in a
family of two brother and his father, lost his life on account of said
accident. The income of Rs.2,500/- taken is minimum possible
income taken by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also not taken into
account the possibility of increase in his future income in his later
life. Be that as it may, since there is no cross appeal of the claimant
for enhancement, this Court is not inclined to grant the enhancement
of compensation. At the same time, this Court is of the opinion that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair does not
require any reduction.
10. The appeal of the Insurance Company is thus, found to
be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.
item No.166
babulal/