Bhagwati & Ors v. M/s. T.M. Motors & Ors., whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim pet

Judgment

1. M/s T.m. Motors, Binarayan Gate, Saracoolar Road Bharatpur (Raj.) Through Owner Indrapal Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Binarayan Gate, Bharatpur. (Owner Of Truck No. Rj-05-Gb-1948)

2. Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Sitaram, R/o Village Gehari, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Driver Of Truck No. Rj-05-Gb- 1948)

3. United India Insurance Comapny Ltd., Head Office Numaish Road, Kumher Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.) Through Division Manager. (Insurance Company Of Truck No. Rj- 05-Gb-1948) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Vinod Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav for Mr. Rishipal Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment 31/07/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (2 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021]

1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants/ appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment and award dated

18.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (Raj.) [for short ‘the Tribunal’] in MAC No. 1652/15, Smt. Bhagwati @ Bhagwati & Ors. v. M/s. T.M. Motors & Ors., whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition awarded a compensation of Rs.55,13,317/- in their favour along- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the claimants/ appellants filed a Claim petition before the Tribunal mentioning that on 15.07.2016, at about 7.30 AM deceased Prabhudayal and his brother Jagdish Prashad were going from his residence, Village Baseri to Hadouli on the motorcycle H.F. Delux Hero No. RJ-05-SP-9514. Jagdish Prasad was driving the motorcycle slowly on his side and Prabhudayal was sitting behind. Prabhudayal was going to teach at Hadouli as usual. At about 7.50 AM ahead of Mudhera, they reached nearby closed house of Amar Singh Bagari and parked his motorcycle on the unpaved track at the side of the road, Jagdish Prasad went down the road to do the toilet and Prabudayal was standing by side of the motorcycle on the unpaved track. At that time, a Swaraj Turbo TXN Loading Truck No.RJ-05-GB-1948 came from Kunder's side which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver-respondent No.2 and coming to the deceased side and hit the motorcycle and deceased Prabhudayal standing on the side of the footpath from the front. In the accident, deceased Prabhudayal received serious [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (3 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021] injuries and he died during treatment. The claimants-appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.2,26,60,000/- under various heads. At the time of accident, deceased Prabhudayal was 50 years of age and he was government teacher in government primary school Hadouli.

3. The written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of the Truck in question) contending that the accident had not occurred from the Truck in question. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the offending Truck was insured with the respondent No.3, Insurance company and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and completely denied the fact of accident with the said offending vehicle. It has also been mentioned that owner and insurance company of the motorcycle has not been made a necessary party. It was also stated that, Deceased was not having a valid license. There is a breach of Insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as four issues including the relief, which are quoted as under:- “1- vk;k fnukad 15-07-2016 dks lqcg ds 7%50 cts izkFkhZ;k dk ifr izHkwn;ky] vius HkkbZ txnh”k izlkn ds lkFk mldh eksVjlkbfdy ,p-,Q- MhyDl ghjks la[;k vkjts 05 ,lih&9514 ls Ldwy esa i<+kus vius xkao clsjh ls gkMkSyh tk jgk FkkA tSls gh eq<sjk ls vkxs] vejflag ckxjh ds can edku [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (4 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021] ds ikl igqapk rks dqUnsj dh rjQ ls ,d Lojkt VcksZ Vh,Dl,u yksfMax xkMh Vªd jft- ua- vkjts 05 thch&1948 dk pkyd jes”k pUn ehuk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 cMh rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj yk;k vkSj jksax lkbM esa vkdj lkeus [kM+s izHkwn;ky o eksVjlkbfdy esa Vddj ekj nh] ftlls izHkwn;ky xEHkhj :i ls ?kk;y o csgks”k gks x;kA izHkwn;ky dks fot; vLirky] Hkjriqj ys x;s] ogka xaHkhj gkyr gksus ds dkj.k jSQj dj fn;kA izHkwn;ky dks jkLrs esa vkxjk ys tkrs le; e`R;q gks x;hA nq?kZVuk okgu pkyd jes”k pUn ehuk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds }kjk okgu dks rstxfr o ykijokgh iwoZd pykus ls ?kfVr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZ;k viuh ;kfpdk esa of.kZrkuqlkj izfrdj jkf”k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdruh jkf”k ,oa fdl dnj ls\ 3- vk;k vizkFkhZ chek dEiuh }kjk tcko dh vkifRr;ksa esa of.kZruqlkj o okgu Lokeh@pkyd }kjk chek ikWfylh dh “krksZa dk mYya?ku djus ds dkj.k chek dEiuh izfrdj jkf”k ds fy, nkf;Rok/khu ugha gSA dfFkr nq?kZVuk esa Lo;a dfFkr e`rd }kjk pykbZ tk jgh eksVjlkbfdy ekfyd o pkyd dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS blfy;s ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 4- vuqrks’k\“

6. On behalf of the claimants/appellants, statements of AW.1 Smt. Bhagwati Bhagwati, AW.2 Jagdish Prashad and AW.3 Ashok Kumar Ojha were recorded and documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-17 were exhibited.

7. On behalf the non-claimants/respondents, statements of NAW.1 Rambabu and NAW.2 Indrapal were recorded and documents Exhibit-A1 to Exhibit-A4 were exhibited. [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (5 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021]

8. The Tribunal passed after hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment and award. The claimants/ appellants aggrieved with the meager amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this misc. appeal.

9. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the record of the claim petition.

10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/ applicants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain additional documents on record that are; photocopy of the PAN Card and Aadhar Card.

11. One of the issue raised by by the counsel appearing for the appellants is in regard to determination of the age of the deceased. For considering the issue of determination of age, the aforesaid documents are material evidence. Therefore, this Court deems just and proper to allow the application filed by the appellants/ applicants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the documents attached with the application are taken on record.

12. One of the issue raised by the counsel appearing for the appellants is that the determination of the age of the deceased as 51-55 years by the Tribunal is contrary to the documentary evidence.

13. As per the PAN Card, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 20th August 1966. In the Aadhar Card the birth year of the deceased has been shown as 1966. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid documentary evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (6 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021]

14. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the issue of determination of the age of the deceased has relied upon the post mortem report and the Panchayatnama wherein the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 50 years. Normally in certain kinds of reports like post mortem, Panchayatnama etc., an approximate age is mentioned which is disclosed by the persons present there to the Personnels preparing the said documents. The PAN Card is a document which is prepared by the Income Tax Department on the basis of documentary evidence and other material submitted along-with the application. In the PAN Card of the deceased issued by the Income Tax Department, the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 20 th August 1966. There is no otherwise evidence to discredit the birth date mentioned therein. The Government of India has also issued the Aadhar Card of the deceased wherein the year of the birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1966. The Aadhar Card is also a documentary evidence which could be relied by the Court when there is no otherwise evidence is available. The date of accident is

15.07.2016. Hence, this Court relying upon the documentary evidence, as referred to above, has come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 49 years and 11 months. Thus, the age of the deceased is determined in the age group of 45-50 years.

15. In view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), the [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (7 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021] multiplier of 30 is applicable in the case of deceased of age group of 45-50 years.

16. Counsel appearing for the appellants has also raised an issue that because the Tribunal has determined the age group of the deceased as 51-55 years and awarded future prospects @ 15% only. Since the deceased is held to be in the age group of 45- 50 years, the claimants are entitled for compensation by including the future prospectus @ 30% while computing the compensation under the head of loss of income.

17. Counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the legal position that in the cases of deceased age group of 45-50 years, the compensation under the head of loss of income is to be computed by adding future prospects @ 30%.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has observed in para No.59.3 as under:- “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.” [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (8 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021]

19. According to the aforesaid settled position, in the present case and the fact that the deceased was a confirmed Govt. employee, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income by an addition of 30% of the income of the deceased. Monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.49,985/- per month and future prospectus @ 30% would be Rs.14995.5/-. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income by treating the age of the deceased under the age group of 45-50 years with an addition of future prospects @ 30%, which would be as under:- A. 49,985+ 14995x12x13x ¾ = 76,02,660/-

20. Counsel appearing for the appellants has also raised an issue that all the appellants are dependent upon the deceased and therefore, each of them was entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the extent of Rs.40,000/- each but the Tribunal has allowed consortium of Rs.40,000/- in total. Counsel appearing for the respondent – Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the settled legal position.

21. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.

22. In view of the discussion made above, the misc. appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:- A. By determining the age of the deceased under the age group of 45-50 years, the claimants shall be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income to the tune of [2025:RJ-JP:29329] (9 of 9) [CMA-2200/2021] Rs.76,02,660/-. Hence, the claimants would be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.21,59,343/-. B. Under the head of consortium, the claimants would be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. C. Thus, in total the claim amount is enhanced with an additional amount of Rs.22,79,343/-. D. The claimants shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on this additional enhanced amount with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. E. The respondent- Insurance Company shall deposit the total additional enhanced amount i.e. Rs.22,79,343/- along-with interest with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, within a period of two months; F. On depositing the amount, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall disburse 50% of the enhanced compensation amount with interest to the claimants and remaining 50% along- with interest, shall be kept in the FDR in the name of claimants for a period of three years.

23. Since the main appeal has been decided, pending application/s, if any, also stand(s), disposed of .

24. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar/127