Jaipur(Raj.) v. P.S. Raipur, District Jhalawar

: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 21/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-In- surance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988"), assailing the award dated 03.05.2016 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar (hereinafter to be referred to as the [2025:RJ-JP:27195] (2 of 6) [CMA-4345/2016] "learned Tribunal") in MACT Case No.875/2015, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs.26,25,000/- with interest 9% p.a. has been awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants/respondents stating that on 25.06.2014, the deceased-Imran Khan, Shafeek and Mujaffar were going on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-17-SG- 1710 and while returning from RTO Office, Jhalawar, near Narhadi Village, their motorcycle was hit by an unknown vehicle due to which Imran Khan died on the spot and Shafeek and Mujaffar sus- tained injuries. Later on, during treatment, Mujaffar succumbed to the injuries. Initially an FIR was lodged against the driver & owner of the unknown vehicle. Later on, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Truck container PB-05-T-8811. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by the appellants and it was pleaded that due to the said accident, the deceased died and at the time of the acci- dent, the age of deceased was 27 years and he used to earn Rs.25,000/- p.m. while operating and driving the Trucks bearing No.RJ-17-SG-3756 and RJ-17-GA-1704.

3. The non-claimant/respondent No.7-Gurupal Singh (driver) filed a detailed reply to the claim petition, wherein he has denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the truck in question has been falsely implanted, and accident did not occur from his vehicle, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to non-claimant/re- spondent No.8-Rajendra Kumar (owner), who despite service of [2025:RJ-JP:27195] (3 of 6) [CMA-4345/2016] the notice, decided not to appear before the Tribunal, thereafter, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him vide order dated

21.09.2015.

5. The non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company filed a de- tailed reply to the claim petition, wherein the Insurance Company has denied the averments made in the claim petition and also de- nied the factum that the accident has occurred from the insured vehicle and submitted that the FIR was lodged with a delay of nine days, there is false implication of the vehicle and further argued that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. Therefore, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five (5) issues.

7. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimants/respondents examined AW-1 Parveen Begum, AW-2-Babli and AW-3-Shafiq and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.43.

8. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company has examined NAW-1 Avdhesh Sharma and produced documents Ex.NA-1-Insurance Policy and Ex.NA-2- License Verification Re- port.

9. After hearing arguments of the counsels for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, decided all the issues against the non-claimant/appellant and assessed the age of the deceased to be 28 years and monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.26,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants. [2025:RJ-JP:27195] (4 of 6) [CMA-4345/2016]

10. Being aggrieved of which the non-claimant-Insurance Com- pany has preferred the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the com- pensation on higher side. Learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the future prospects as 50% and awarded excess amount under the conventional heads. Therefore, the impugned award may ei- ther be set aside or modified to some extent.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is devoid of mer- its, therefore, the same may kindly be rejected.

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

14. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has assessed the monthly income of deceased-Imran to be Rs.10,000/- p.m. and age to be 28 years and 8 months and while assessing the aspect of future prospect, 50% enhancement has been awarded which is impermissible in the eyes of law. Similarly, the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation under the head of 'love and affection', awarded Rs.50,000/- (each) to claimants No.2 to 6 and Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife-claimant No.1 and interest award @ of 9% per annum is also on a higher side which is in contravention to the 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. [2025:RJ-JP:27195] (5 of 6) [CMA-4345/2016]

15. That though in view of the above mentioned illegality/perver- sity, impugned award can be set aside and matter could have been remanded back for re-consideration of the case as well as for re-determination of compensation, but since while issuing notice of the present appeal, this court directed the appellant to deposit entire amount of compensation with the learned Tribunal and also directed to disburse 25% amount to the claimant/s. Further the claimant/s have also preferred an appeal bearing No. 3707/2016 for enhancement of the impugned award. Therefore, while taking a holistic approach to avoid further delay in the matter related to the accident occurred in the year 2016, instead of remanding the case back, this court deems it appropriate to re-determine the compensation amount, while applying the principle expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of NICO Vs. Pranay Sethi.

16. Thus, if the facts of the case are considered in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi(supra), the claimants are entitled for lessor com- pensation.

17. Since as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.24,12,000/- as compensation and under the impugned award claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 26,25,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be reduced to the tune of Rs. 2,13,000/- as mentioned in the table herein under: [2025:RJ-JP:27195] (6 of 6) [CMA-4345/2016] Loss of income Rs.10,000/- x12x17=Rs.20,40,000/- Deduction (Personal expense) (1/3)(-) (-)Rs.5,10,000/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.6,12,000/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000x6) Rs.2,40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of Funeral expense Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.24,12,000/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.26,25,000/- Reduced amount of compen- sation Rs.2,13,000/-

18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and reduced from Rs. 26,25,000/- to Rs. 24,12,000/- as per the terms indicated above. However it is made clear that the claimant is entitled to get 6% per annum interest over the compensation amount of Rs. 24,12,000/- from the date of the accident till realization.

19. It is made clear that the excess amount of Rs. 2,13,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company pursuant to the impugned award dated 03.05.2016 as well order dated

18.07.2016 passed by this Court may be refunded back to the In- surance Company along with interest accrued.

20. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /127-S (MANEESH SHARMA),J