Sultan & Ors v. Smt. Jaitoon & Anr

1. Smt. Jaitoon w/o Nasir Khan, r/o in front of Mohan Bidi Factory, Chang Gate, Beawar (Owner of the tempo No.RJ-36-P- 0331)

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its regional manager, Regional Office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company of the Tempo No.RJ-36-P-0331) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. P. Gupta with Ms. Shreya Khandal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma with Mr. Vaibhav Jhankara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 11/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing award dated 03.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Beawar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tribunal"), in Claim [2025:RJ-JP:25691] (2 of 5) [CMA-231/2008] Case No.135/2004 titled as "Sultan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Jaitoon & Anr.", whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,47,444/- as compensation.

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

10.02.2004, the deceased Kanaram, was driving a Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-36-P-0331. Due to unavoidable circumstances, Kanaram lost control of the Tempo and hit with a tree. As a result of which, the deceased Kanaram sustained injuries and later on died. It was further pleaded that the deceased died during the course of employment, therefore, the claim petition was filed seeking just compensation.

3. After service of notice of the claim petition, non-claimant- respondent No.2-Insurance Company, filed its response to the claim petition. It denied the averments made by the claimants/appellants, submitting that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess valid and effective license, and in the absence of a valid permit, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

5. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined Sultan (AW-1), Leela (AW-2), Kaluram (AW-3), Smt. Salma (AW-4) and produced documents as Ex-1 to Ex-21.

6. In rebuttal, no evidence was presented by non- claimant/respondent No.1-Smt. Jaitoon and the non- [2025:RJ-JP:25691] (3 of 5) [CMA-231/2008] claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company, examined Mahaveer Jain (NAW-2/1) and presented Ex-A1 to Ex-A3.

7. After hearing arguments from both the parties, the learned Tribunal, while invoking Section 167 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 determined the compensation by considering the provisions of employee compensation. It assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day, equivalent to the daily wages of an unskilled labour, and applied a relevant factor of 219.95. Consequently, it awarded a compensation of Rs.2,47,444/- along with interest at the rate of 6% in the judgment and award dated 03.07.2007.

8. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the complainants/appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in determining the compensation by assessing the deceased Kanaram's (Tempo driver) income based on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour at at 75/- per day. He further submitted that since the deceased was performing the duties of a driver on the date of the accident, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker (at the rate of Rs.81 per day) ought to have been awarded. In the alternative, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in calculating the monthly income at Rs.2,250/- instead of Rs.2,430/- per month. He further submitted that while the learned Tribunal invoked Section 167 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, it awarded interest at a rate of 6%. However, citing in the matter of " Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata And Anr." reported in 1975 INSC 301, decided on 04.12.1975, it was argued that when determining compensation under the Employee [2025:RJ-JP:25691] (4 of 5) [CMA-231/2008] Compensation Act, the rate of interest should be as prescribed under the said Act (at the rate of 12%). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned award may be modified and enhanced.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company, has supported the impugned award, vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, submitting that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, and is perfectly just and proper, requiring no interference from this Court, and thus, the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the above-mentioned judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo . (supra)

12. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that although the deceased was performing the duties of a Tempo driver at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal, while determining the compensation and assessing the income, applied the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour. Since the deceased was admittedly employed as a driver of the Tempo, he is entitled to minimum wages equivalent to be paid to a skilled worker, i.e., at the rate of Rs.81/- per day instead of Rs.75/- per day awarded by the learned Tribunal.

13. Furthermore, from perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6%, whereby considering the rate of interest prevalent at that point of time, this Court is of the considered view that the interest awarded at the rate of 6%, needs no interference. The judgment [2025:RJ-JP:25691] (5 of 5) [CMA-231/2008] relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants/appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,67,239.25/- (81/-x30=2430÷1/2=1215) (1215x219.95=Rs.2,67,239.25/-) as compensation instead of Rs.2,47,444/-.

14. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced additional to Rs.19,795/-. It is made clear that the claimants/appellants are entitled to get 6% interest on the said amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is needless to say that the other direction in the impugned award, qua that the compensation will be paid by the Insurance Company at the first instance and that the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the Tempo Smt. Jaitoon, remains unchanged.

15. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. Seema/62 (MANEESH SHARMA),J