Mahu Kala PS Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur v. Mahu Kala Police Station, Gangapur City District, Sawai Madhopur

: Mr. Subodh Kumar Sharma, on behalf For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain of Mr. Raunak Dixit, Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 21/07/2025 Order

1. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4912/2016 has been filed by non-claimant/appellants challenging the finding qua Issue No.2, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the impugned award dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.39/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on non-claimant/appellant No.1 and 2.

2. The S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4793/2016 has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on

02.10.2006, around 05:30AM, claimant - Rammurty, along with non-claimant - Hariom, were going to Gangapur City from Jeewali village on a motorcycle, bearing registration No.RJ-25-3M-0688, when they reached near Toksi ke Hanumanji, the non-claimant Hariom, driving the motorcycle in a Zigzag, rash and negligent manner at a high speed, collided with the motorcycle, bearing registration No.RJ-34-1M-3372, which was going ahead. As a result of which, the injured Rammurty sustained serious injuries on his right leg, right thigh, left shoulder, and head. Consequently, [2025:RJ-JP:27189] (3 of 7) [CMA-4912/2016] a claim petition was filed by the injured seeking just and fair compensation.

4. It was pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the injured was 30 years, and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by working at a petrol pump. Therefore, prayed for awarding just and fair compensation.

5. Notice of the claim petition was served upon the respondent Nos . 1 and 2 (driver and owner), and they filed a joint reply on

29.06.2007 wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition, stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-34-1M-3372. They further stated that the motorcycle, bearing No.RJ-25-3M-0688 was insured with the respondent No.3-Insurance Company; therefore, if any liability to pay compensation is made, the same may be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

6. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim petition on 29.06.2007, whereby it denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the insured motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective license. It further stated that the pillion rider was not insured as per the insurance policy; therefore, the liability to pay the compensation may not be held on the Insurance Company, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed six (6) issues.

8. The claim petition was initially allowed vide award dated

19.06.2009. Against this award, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.4824/2009 and 4800/2009 were filed by the respective [2025:RJ-JP:27189] (4 of 7) [CMA-4912/2016] parties, wherein after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 04.02.2015, upheld the findings of the learned Tribunal qua issues No.1, 3 and 4, but remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to re-decide Issues No.2 and 5.

9. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Tribunal re- decided the matter through the impugned award dated

27.05.2016. While deciding Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company, and while deciding Issue No.5, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs . 3,33,970/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the present two appeals have been preferred.

11. The non-claimant/appellants-the driver and the owner of the vehicle have preferred S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4912/2016. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the fact that the Insurance Company's policy was a package policy, which covers the risk of a pillion rider. However, despite this acknowledgment, the last line of the impugned award qua Issue No.2 stated that the Insurance Company was not liable, which is per se illegal and may be set aside.

12. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant(s) and supported the impugned award. [2025:RJ-JP:27189] (5 of 7) [CMA-4912/2016]

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

14. From a bare perusal of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No.2, it is reflected that the learned Tribunal has considered the facts in detail. The learned Tribunal explicitly noted that the Insurance policy in this case was a package policy, which covers the risk of a pillion rider. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has considered the notification issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA circulars dated

16.11.2009 and 03.12.2012, and recorded a specific finding that the risk of a pillion rider is covered. It appears that due to some typographical error, it is recorded by the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable. The issue involved in the present matter is squarely addressed and resolved by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Yashpal Luthra & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 ACC 130, decided on 09.12.2009.

15. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal under issue No.2, thereby exonerating the Insurance Company, is hereby set aside. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to bear the liability to pay compensation to the claimant, Rammurty Chaturvedi.

16. Therefore, the present appeal No. 4912/2016 is partly allowed. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified as per the terms indicated herein above.

17. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4793/2016, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the compensation [2025:RJ-JP:27189] (6 of 7) [CMA-4912/2016] awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 5, committed a serious error by exonerating the Insurance Company and awarding a very meager compensation. It was further stated that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess the age of the injured to be 31 years, monthly income to be Rs. 4,000/-, and that the injured suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 52.5%. Therefore, the award may suitably be modified, and the awarded compensation may kindly be enhanced.

18. Per contra, learned counsel non-claimants/respondents opposes the said submissions.

19. From a bare perusal of the record of the case, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the age of injured, has considered the statement of the witnesses, and on that basis, the learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the age of the injured was 31 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16.

20. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the injured to be Rs.3,000/- and after necessary calculations, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,33,970/- as compensation, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the claimant/appellants for enhancement cannot be accepted.

21. From the bare perusal of the impugned award, it is clear that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law; therefore, the impugned award does not suffer from any [2025:RJ-JP:27189] (7 of 7) [CMA-4912/2016] legal infirmity or perversity and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

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

23. Accordingly, the present S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4793/2016 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

24. In view of the discussions made herein above, both the appeals are decided as under:- S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4912/2016 titled as "Hariom Chaturvedi & Anr. vs. Rammurty Chaturvedi & Anr.," is patly allowed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4793/2016 titled as "Rammurty Chaturvedi vs. Hariom Chaturvedi & Ors." is hereby dismissed.

25. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/128-129 (MANEESH SHARMA),J