Sikar (Raj.) v. Kaswali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar

: Mr. Rizwan Ahmed with Mr. Mohsin (for respondent in 3279/2014) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya (for appellant in 3279/2014) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 07/07/2025 Order

1. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2965/2014 has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the "learned Tribunal", Sikar in Claim Case No.737/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondents was partly allowed & awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,000/- along with interest @ Rs.6% p.a. in favour of the claimant/appellants.

2. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3279/2014 has been filed by the Claimant/appellants for enhancement of compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (3 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014]

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28.09.2011 the deceased-Shubhash was travelling to his village on his motorcycle bearing No.RJ-23-SG-6452 from Laxmangarh when he reached near Singodari Bus Stand, a Bolero Car bearing No.RJ-10-T-0269, driven by the respondent-Satpal Singh (driver of the vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner collided with him. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death.

4. The respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner) of the vehicle filed their joint reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further submitted that since the vehicle-in- question was insured at the relevant time, therefore, liability to pay compensation, if arise, is to be payable by the Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Ltd. filed a separate reply to the claim petition, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim and further submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the relevant time, which is against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, hence, not liable to pay any compensation.

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

7. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant examined (AW-1) Bhagoti Devi and (AW-2) Omparkash and produced documents form Ex.1 to Ex.16 including Ex.1 FIR, Ex.2 Written Report, Ex.3 Driving License, Ex.4 [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (4 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014] Registration, Ex.5 Insurance Policy, Ex.6 Permit, Ex.7 Charge- sheet, Ex.8 site plan, Ex.9 statement Om Prakash, Ex.10 Injury Report, Ex.11 Injury Report Subhash, Ex.12 Post-mortem report, Ex.13 Panchnama, Ex.14 receipt, Ex.15 Notice under section 133, Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Ex.16 mechanical report.

8. In rebuttal, the defendant-respondent have examined NAW-1 Sakshi Mahendra Singh and produced documents i.e. Original D.L. Verification Report (Ex.NA1), receipt (Ex.NA2), legal notice (Ex. NA3) and Registry receipt (Ex.NA4).

9. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimants, awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,000/- along with interest @ 6% and while deciding the issue No.3, it has been held that objection of the Insurance Company with regard to violation of policy is not tenable, therefore, it is not entitled to be exonerated.

10. That being aggrieved of which the present two appeals have been filed.

11. Non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company has preferred SBCMA No. 2965/2014 assailing the findings recorded under the impugned judgment qua Issue No.3. Thereby liability has been fasten upon the Appellant as well as the quantum.

12. The learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration that on the date of accident, the driver of the insured vehicle was having only license for light Motor Vehicle, [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (5 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014] whereas he was driving light transport vehicle, therefore, liability to pay compensation by the Insurance Company ought not to have been fastened.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents supported the findings of the learned Tribunal qua issue No.3 and submitted that the question raised by the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company regarding the valid and effective driving license is no longer res integra as the issue with regard to validity of such license has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi reported in 2024 INSC

840. He further submits that as per Ex.4 the registration certificate of the insured vehicle- Bolero, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 2,650 kilograms, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot seek exoneration.

14. A bare perusal of the findings recorded under the impugned order, it is clear that the unladen weight of the vehicle-in-question is 2,650 kilograms, therefore, as per the judgments of Rambha Devi (Supra) and Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 INSC 576, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal qua issue No.3 cannot be said to be arbitrary or suffering from any legal infirmity.

15. Therefore, SBCMA No. 2965/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby rejected being devoid of merit.

16. So far as, the SBCMA No. 3279/2014 preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (6 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014] claimant-appellants submits that while awarding the compensation under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects and amount awarded under the conventional heads are also less, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the compensation awarded in the impugned order may kindly be suitably enhanced.

17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the said request of enhancement and submits that the impugned order is perfectly just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

18. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, it is evident that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased Subhash was 40 years and the learned Tribunal while applying the principle of minimum wages, has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.150/- per day, accordingly, assessed Rs.4,500/- per month and applied the multiplier of 14 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,000/-. However, the future prospect has not been considered and amount awarded under conventional heads are also less if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds the compensation awarded under the impugned order requires to be modified to some extent. Thus, while considering the age of deceased to be 40 years and the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident and [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (7 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014] in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation amount claimed by the claimant/appellant is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein: Loss of Earning Capacity Due To Functional Disability (+) Rs.4,500x12x15=Rs.8,10,000/- Deduction 1/4 (Dependants-4)(-) Rs.2,02,500/- Future prospects (+) 25% Rs.1,51,875/- Loss of love, affection and consortium (Rs.40,000x4)(+) Funeral Expenses(+) Loss of Estate(+) Total Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.9,49,375/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.6,72,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,77,375/-

19. Therefore, SBCMA No. 3279/2014 is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,49,375/- from the original amount of Rs.6,72,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,77,375/- before the learned concerned 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.2,77,375/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of 22.11.2011 until the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

20. Accordingly, the SBCMA No. 3279/2014 filed by the claimant/appellant is partly allowed. The compensation awarded [2025:RJ-JP:24958] (8 of 8) [CMA-2965/2014] by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

21. In view of the discussions made herein above, both the appeals are decide as under:- S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2965/2014 titled as "National Insurance Co. vs. Smt. Bhagoti Devi and Ors." is dismissed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3279/2014 titled as "Smt. Bhagoti Devi and Ors. vs. Satpal Singh and Anr." is partly allowed as indicated herein above.

22. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /34-35 (MANEESH SHARMA),J