HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. 2. 3. 4. 1 v. Chauthmal Mali S/o

: Mr. Sanjay Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arnav Singh with Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimant/appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.03.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Baran in claim case No.48/2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellants was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.6,82,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

04.06.2011, the deceased- Vishnu Prasad Meena was travelling from his village to Neemach, carrying his harvest (Garlic Crop) in [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (2 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017] a truck bearing registration No. RJ-08-GA-0085. When the truck reached near the field of Mohanlal, Gram- Gaeshpura Mokhan Neemah road, the truck being driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, capsized, as a result of which, Vishnu Prasad Meena sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, therefore, on account of the death of Vishnu Prasad Meena, his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking a just compensation.

3. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 39 years and was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and by selling of milk and therefore, prayed for awarding a just compensation.

4. After receiving notice of the claim petition, the non- claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their reply to the claim petition wherein they denied the averments made therein and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was also stated that the vehicle in question was insured with non-claimant/respondent No.5- Insurance Company, if any liability is found due, the same may be fastened upon the Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.5- Insurance Company also filed their reply to the claim petition on 05.05.2014 wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and at the time of accident, the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. It was further [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (3 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017] stated that the vehicle in question was registered as a commercial vehicle whereas the deceased was travelling as a passenger, therefore, in view of the violation of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that initially, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Baran was arrayed as party respondent No.4. Later on, the name of New India Assurance Company Limited, Baran was deleted and the name of respondent No.5- Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited was impleaded.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four (4) issues.

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Geeta Bai and AW-2 Sitaram.

9. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondents examined NAW-1 Aditya Jhalani.

10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant/appellants partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,82,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. However, taking into account that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid or effective license, the Insurance Company has been exonerated, and liability to pay compensation has fastened upon non-claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (4 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017]

11. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellants have preferred the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding an inadequate amount of compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by not considering the future prospects of the deceased, and the amount awarded under the conventional heads is meager. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in exonerating the Insurance Company for awarding compensation and fastening the liability upon non-claimant/respondent Nos.1 to

3. He further contended that as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (72) DRJ 555 (SC), the Insurance Company ought to have been directed first to pay the compensation to the claimant/appellants and then recover the same from the non-claimant/respondents, therefore, the impugned award may kindly be modified to some extent.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.5- Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. He further submits that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having any valid or effective license, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company for paying the compensation and fastened the said liability upon the non-claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 3, therefore, the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (5 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017]

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

15. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the deceased- Vishnu Prasad Meena lost his life in an accident which took place on 04.06.2011, it is also reflected that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 40 years of age and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month but the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the aspect of future prospects of the deceased while awarding the compensation. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is also reflected that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also less; therefore, the impugned award requires modification to some extent.

16. As far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellants with regard to the exoneration of the Insurance Company is considered, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. reported in 2018 INSC 36, the learned Tribunal has erred in not invoking the principle of pay and recover.

17. Further from the record of the case, it is reflected that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective license, therefore, the Insurance Company has been exonerated by the learned Tribunal. The said finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be proved in view of the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) in para 112. [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (6 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017]

18. The learned Tribunal while exonerating the Insurance Company has not taken into consideration that Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks) is a social welfare legislation established and enacted to extend relief by awarding compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles and in the present case the defence has been set up by Insurance Company regarding violation of terms and conditions of the policy but looking to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra) to sub-serve the ends of justice, findings recorded under issue No.3 are hereby modified and the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant/appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

19. If the facts of the case are considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the impugned award is required to be modified to some extent.

20. Accordingly, after taking a wholesome consideration of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award requires enhancement to some extent and the same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of Income (+) Rs. 4,500x12x15 =Rs.8,10,000/- Deduction1/4(Dependents-4)(-) (-)Rs.2,02,500/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs. 2,43,000/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x4)(+) Rs. 1,60,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:28334] (7 of 7) [CMA-3011/2017] Loss of Estate(+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.10,40,500/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.6,82,500/- Enhanced compensation Rs.3,58,000/-

21. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal qua finding of issue No.4 is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.10,40,500/- from the original amount of Rs.6,82,500/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,58,000/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within sixty (60) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant/appellants are also entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.3,58,000/- at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimant/appellants on a pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

22. It is also made clear that in view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding recorded under issue No.3 is hereby modified and to sub-serve the ends of justice the Insurance Company in the first instance will pay the awarded amount to the claimant/appellants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

23. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms with no order as to costs.

24. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-67 (MANEESH SHARMA),J