Gurjar Ghati, Jaipur v. Paali Hill, Bandra, Mumbai

: Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 11/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated

07.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City Jaipur, in case No.218/2005, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,79,944/-.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

23.07.2003, Smt. Geeta Mukherjee was going from Pratap Nagar [2025:RJ-JP:25660] (2 of 6) [CMA-1224/2006] to Sat Sai College, Jawahr Nagar, along with Sh. Atmaram in a Maruti car, bearing registration No. RJ-14-3C-4772. When they were going towards Malviya Nagar bridge from Jawahar Circle, a truck, bearing registration No. HR-38-D-9995, driven by driver- Krishna Dev in rash and negligent manner hit the Maruti car and as a result of which, Sh. Atmaram sustained grievous injuries and Smt. Geeta Mukherjee died.

3. It was stated by the claimant/appellants that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 51 years 3 months and was working as a Matron in Sat Sai College, Jawahar Nagar and getting salary of Rs.6,454/- per month, therefore, prayed for awarding just compensation.

4. During the pendency of the claim petition, the driver of the vehicle was expired and the name of the driver was deleted form the petition vide order dated 27.09.2004.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle despite service of notice, chose not to appear before the Court, therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him vide order dated 21.04.2004.

6. The non-claimant/respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and contended that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective license, therefore, liability may not be fasten upon the Insurance Company.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed five issues.

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants were examined as AW-1 Nishit Mukherjeee, [2025:RJ-JP:25660] (3 of 6) [CMA-1224/2006] AW-2 Smt. Sharad Tripathi and AW-3 Hari Singh Chaudhary and produced Ex.1 to Ex.13 including FIR (Ex.1) Site map (Ex.4), Post Mortem Report (Ex.9) and Salary Certificate issued by the Sat Sai College (Ex.12).

9. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined NAW-1 B.L. Paraiwa and produced Ex. NA-1 to NA-6.

10. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,944/- along with the interest of 7.5% per annum, as compensation whereas while deciding issue No.3, learned Tribunal has recorded that during the course of investigation, it was found that driver of the insured truck was not having valid and effective license and the driver was possessing a fake license, therefore, learned Tribunal decided issue No.3 and held that the non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company at the first instance pay the compensation and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

11. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the amount awarded is inadequate and contrary to the documentary evidence available on record. He further submits that as per salary certificate (Ex.12) issued by Principal of Sat Sai College, Jawahar Nagar which was duly proved by AW-2 Smt. Sharad Tripathi. It is evident that the deceased was posted at the post of Matron and was earning salary of Rs.6,454/-, therefore, learned Tribunal erred in calculating the loss of income while [2025:RJ-JP:25660] (4 of 6) [CMA-1224/2006] treating the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,976/-. He further submits that learned Tribunal erred in deducting 2/3 amount as personal expenses, while looking to the number of claimants, the deduction should be 1/3 as personal expenses. He further submits that in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the impugned award is required to be enhanced.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.1- Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, therefore, he submits that no interference is required by this Court and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

14. From bare perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased was 51 years 3 months of age and as per salary certificate issued by Sat Sai College, Jawahar Nagar (Ex. 12) which was duly proved the statement of AW-2. It is established that the deceased was drawing Rs.6,454/- per month as a Matron but learned Tribunal misread and misinterpreted the Ex.12 and calculated the loss of income Rs.5,976/- per month instead of Rs.6,454/- per month as indicated in salary certificate (Ex.12).

15. From the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in deducting 2/3rd deductions towards personal expenses while not taking into consideration the number of claimants in the present matter. [2025:RJ-JP:25660] (5 of 6) [CMA-1224/2006]

16. After taking wholesome consideration of above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of Income (+) Rs. 6,454x12x11 = 8,51,928/- Deduction 1/3 (Dependents-3)(-) (-)Rs. 2,83,976/- Future Prospects 15% (+) Rs. 85,193/- Love and Affection (Rs.40,000/-)(+) Rs. 1,20,000/- Funeral Expenses & Loss of Estate(+) Rs. 15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.30,000 Total Rs.8,03,145/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,79,944/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 5,23,201/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.8,03,145/- from the original amount of Rs.2,79,944/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.5,23,201/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.5,23,201/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

18. Since, this Court has merely interfered with the quantum of compensation, it is needless to say, this Court is conscious of the fact that the findings recorded in issue No.3 is perfectly just and proper and there is no ambiguity in the application of the principle [2025:RJ-JP:25660] (6 of 6) [CMA-1224/2006] of pay and recover, however, it is made clear that under the operative order due to typographical error, certain discrepancy have reflected which will not come in the way of Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

19. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly allowed.

20. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-55 (MANEESH SHARMA),J