Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur, through the Regional Manager v. All are residents of Nevtawalon Ka Mohalla, Behind Kelico

: Mr. V.P. Mathur (3677/2015) Mr. Vinay Mathur (4247/2015) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur (3677/2015) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 31/07/2025 Order

1. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3677/2015 has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as the "learned Tribunal"), in Claim Case No.2310/2012, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant/respondents was partly allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation in favour of the claimant/respondents.

2. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4247/2015 has been filed by the Claimant/appellants for enhancement of compensation against the same award dated 10.06.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals are that on 29.07.2012, the deceased- Smt. Anita Soni along with her neighbour- Manish Kumar was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-14-BS-0740 as a pillion rider at about 8:45 AM, when they crossed Bosch Company on Goner Road, Sitapura, the motorcycle being at a high speed and overlooking the speed [2025:RJ-JP:29165] (3 of 7) [CMA-3677/2015] breaker resulted in a fatal jerk, and the deceased- Anita Soni was thrown off the vehicle and fell on the road, sustaining grievous head injuries. As a result of these injuries, the deceased- Anita Soni succumbed to death during treatment at Mahatama Gandhi Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur on 04.08.2012.

4. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 44 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, prayed for awarding just and fair compensation.

5. After receiving notice of the claim petition, the non- claimant/respondents (driver and owner) of the vehicle filed their joint reply and denied negligence of the driver in the accident and further submitted that since the vehicle-in-question was insured with Insurance Company, therefore, if liability is found due the same may be fasten upon the Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Notice of the claim petition was served upon non-claimant- Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company filed a separate reply to the claim petition, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and further submitted that the FIR with regard to the said accident was lodged with a delay of seven days and the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner of the vehicle, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four (4) issues. [2025:RJ-JP:29165] (4 of 7) [CMA-3677/2015]

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined AW-1 Ramdas Soni and AW-2 Anil Soni and produced documents Ex.1 Inquest Report, Ex.2 Result of death, Ex.3 FIR, Ex.4 Injury Report, Ex.5 Panchnama, Ex.6 Application for Post-mortem, Ex.7 Post-mortem report, Ex.8 Receipt for handing over the dead body, Ex.9 Registration Certificate of motorcycle, Ex.10 Insurance Certificate, Ex.11 Driving License, Ex.12 BHT, Ex.13'A' Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased, and Ex.14 Newspaper cutting of the above accident published in Rajasthan Patrika.

9. In rebuttal, the non-claimants/respondents examined themselves as NAW-1 and NAW-2.

10. The non-claimant- Insurance Company, despite being granted the opportunity, did not lead any evidence.

11. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimants and also considering the age of the deceased to be 49 years and while considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- along with interest @ 6% as compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition dated 15.10.2012 till its realization.

12. Being aggrieved of which the present two appeals have been filed.

13. The non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company has preferred S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3677/2015. [2025:RJ-JP:29165] (5 of 7) [CMA-3677/2015]

14. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding issue No.2 against the non-claimant/appellant. He further submits that from the evidence available on record, it is reflected that the non-claimant/respondent No.4- Manish Kumar was driving the vehicle without the valid consent of non-claimant/respondent No.5- Jhamatmal, therefore, liability to pay compensation ought not to have been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, therefore, the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interference, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

16. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

17. From the findings of issue No.2, it is reflected that the non- claimant/respondent No.4- Manish Kumar, son of non- claimant/respondent No.5- Jhamatmal was driving the motorcycle, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the non- claimant/appellant- Insurance Company that the non- claimant/respondent No.4- Manish Kumar was driving the vehicle without authorization or due consent of the owner can not be accepted, as looking to the relationship between non- claimant/respondent No.4- Manish Kumar and non- claimant/respondent No.5- Jhamatmal (father and son) the [2025:RJ-JP:29165] (6 of 7) [CMA-3677/2015] contention regarding driving of the vehicle without authorization or was not having due permission of non-claimant/respondent No.5- Jhamatmal lacks merit. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

18. Accordingly, the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company lack merit.

19. Accordingly, the present S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3677/2015 is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed.

20. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4247/2015, learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded an inadequate amount of compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be 49 years, whereas her age was 44 years. He further submits that the monthly income of the deceased was more than Rs.3,000/- but the learned Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, therefore, he prayed that the compensation may kindly be enhanced suitably.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for non-claimant/respondents opposes the said submissions.

22. From the record of the case, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the age of the deceased, has considered the evidences of AW-1 (Ramdas Soni, husband of the deceased) and on that basis, the learned Tribunal has arrived at conclusion that the age of the deceased was 49 years and accordingly, further, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of

14. [2025:RJ-JP:29165] (7 of 7) [CMA-3677/2015]

23. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- and after necessary deductions, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- as compensation, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the claimant/appellants for enhancement cannot be accepted.

24. From the bare perusal of the impugned award, reveals that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, therefore, the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

25. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant/appellants fails and is dismissed.

26. Accordingly, the present S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4247/2015 is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed.

27. In view of the discussions made herein above, both the appeals are decided as under:- S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3677/2015 titled as "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anil Soni & Ors.," is hereby dismissed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4247/2015 titled as "Anil Soni & Ors. vs. Manish Kumar & Ors." is hereby dismissed.

28. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. DEEPA-40-41 (MANEESH SHARMA),J