Jaipur Raj v. Nawashahar on 04 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. Baldev Singh S/o Shri Chechal Singh, aged about 49 years, R/o Village- Urapur, P.S.- Nawashahar, District Nawashahar (Panjab) (Driver And Owner).

2. Natitional Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Regional Office- Near Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellant-claimant Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3089/2012 National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered Office at 3, Middleton Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700071 and having its Regional Office at “Jeevan Nidhi”, 2nd Floor, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005, Jaipur-through its Constituent Attorney. ----Respondents/Non claimants Versus

1.Bijendra Singh S/o Shri Sangram Singh, Aged about 25 Years, R/o Patraj, Tehsil- Todaraisingh, District- Tonk Raj. Presently residing at C/o Ummed Singh S/o Shri Ladu Singh, 80, Kailash Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj.

2. Baldev Singh S/o Shri Chechal Singh, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village- Urapur, P.S.- Nawashahar, District Nawashahar Panjab (Owner and Driver Vehicle No.PB-32-B-6210). ...Claimant/Respondent ----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal with Mr. Aditya Sharma (respondent in CMA No.3089/2012) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Joshi (appellant in CMA No.3089/2012) [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (2 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: :: 04/04/2025 25/04/2025

1. In these twin appeals, one from the claimant and another from the Insurance Company, the claimant seeks enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company claims for reduction of claim compensation on various grounds.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of a single judgment, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. In this judgment, the claimant is referred to as “the appellant” and the Insurance Company is referred to as “the respondent” for convenience.

4. The accident in which the appellant got injuries occurred on

21.12.2008 to which the appellant along with his companion Rajveer, were travelling as a pillion rider on Motor Cycle No.RJ-22- SD-6636 at the same time, the Driver of Truck No.PB-32-B-6210 came from the Pali side at high speed and negligently on the wrong side and hit the Motor Cycle, causing serious injuries to both legs and many parts of appellant’s body and during treatment, the right leg had to be amputated. Hence, claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal.

5. Notices were served to the respondents. Respondent No.1 i.e. driver and owner appeared before the learned Tribunal and has [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (3 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012] filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2-National Insurance Company filed a reply stating that the appellant and respondents do not reside within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Further, it is averred that the accident did not occur within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the insurance policy was not issued within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, hence learned Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. It is categorically stated in the reply that at the time of accident respondent No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. It is also averred that the owner and the Insurance Company of the Motor-cycle involved in the accident had not been made parties, who were necessary parties and at the time of the accident, the Motor-cycle was being driven against the Act without a valid and effective driving license and helmet.

6. Learned Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. In support of claim petition, the appellant examined AW-1 Birendra Singh, and exhibited the documents from Ex.1 to Ex.427. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents.

7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced on record, learned Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,62,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till payment.

8. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award of compensation, the appellant has filed appeal for enhancement and respondent seeks to reduce the compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (4 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012]

9. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to the accident, right leg of the appellant was amputated and he received 62% permanent disability and he is unable to work in future, therefore, the disability may be considered as 100% but the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. The learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the salary certificate. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award a reasonable compensation under conventional heads of enjoyment of life, love and affection and transport in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569.

11. Opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The permanent disability certificate was never proved by any doctor. The learned Tribunal has determined the minimum wages as was prevailing in the year 2011-12 while the accident took place in the year 2008. The minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident is required to be considered, hence the awarded compensation is excessive and arbitrary with a higher rate of interest, therefore, the award of [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (5 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012] compensation is required to be reduced in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Nirmala Debi Agarwal Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 639 and (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur & ors., AIR 2004 SC 1581.

12. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

13. At the outset, the manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. This appeal has been filed only questioning quantum of compensation as well as jurisdiction, hence there is no need for any discussion on the question of negligence.

14. Though the respondents have raised the question of territorial jurisdiction but to substantiate his contention, no evidence has been adduced by Insurance Company. On the contrary, in the claim petition, the appellant has mentioned their current address of Jaipur, therefore, objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is not tenable.

15. At the time of accident, age of the injured Bijendra Singh being in the range of 21-25 years was not disputed. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspect, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,62,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realisation. [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (6 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012]

16. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible.

17. Though the learned Tribunal has not relied upon the salary certificate Ex.15 produced by the appellant and has considered the monthly income of the injured as 4410/-, after considering 147 per day minimum wages but at the time of accident i.e. in the year 2008, the prevailing minimum wages for the unskilled labourer was Rs. 100/- therefore, the learned Tribunal has not determined the monthly income of the injured in a right perspective. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,90,544/- for the loss of income applying the multiplier of 18 on the basis of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009] 5 S.C.R.1098. However, considering the minimum wages for unskilled labour at the time of accident @ Rs.100/- per day assessing month of 30 days, monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3000/- and adding its 40% i.e. Rs.1200/- towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (7 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012] Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4200/- per month out of which the injured suffered 62% disability therefore net income would come to Rs. 2604/- per month and loss of income comes to Rs. 2604 X 18 X 12=5,62,464/-.

18. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the pain, suffering, physical and mental agony, permanent disability and difficulties in daily life caused by the serious injuries sustained by him. Further, Rs.56,000/- was awarded for nutritious food and for hospitalization charges. The total amount of treatment bills presented by the claimant is Rs.3,85,329/-, therefore the Tribunal awarded the same towards this head and no amount is awarded under any other conventional head.

19. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is ought to be re-assessed, and re-determined as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.)

4. Loss of income 5,90,544/- 5,62,464/- Hospital Visits and 56,000/- 1,00,000/- Nutritious Food Hospital Bills 3,85,456/- 3,85,456/- Pain, suffering 30,000/- 2,00,000/- physical and mental agony, permanent disability & difficulties in daily [2025:RJ-JP:15469] (8 of 8) [CMA-3267/2012] Total Compensation 10,62,000/- 12,47,920/-

20. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,47,920/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.

21. Consequently, the Appeal No. 3267/2012 presented by the appellant is allowed and the Appeal No. 3089/2012 filed by the respondent is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

22. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant- claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. Sunita/12-13 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J