Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14148
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Maneesh Sharma, J
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Geeta Devi et al. – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2617/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Mr. P.C. Dewanda, Mr. Ramavtar Bochalya, Mr. Kapil Choudhary, Mr. Abhishek Dewanda
The court upheld the compensation award based on the deceased's age, income, and future prospects, confirming the assessment as just and reasonable.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Claim for compensation following a motor accident resulting in death - Award of compensation of Rs. 8,13,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum contested. (Para 1 and 9)
(B) Calculation of compensation - Consideration of age of deceased as 28 years, monthly income assessed at Rs. 3,000/- with multiplier of 17 was applicable. Future prospects should be considered. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Accident occurred on 06.02.2011 when the deceased was struck by a truck while riding a motorcycle, resulting in his death. Claimants alleged the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month at the time of the accident.
Findings of Court:
The awarded compensation was found to be just and not excessive, aligning with the appropriate legal principles for calculation of compensation.
Issues: The court examined whether the awarded compensation was justified based on income, age of the deceased, and the necessity of considering future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the awarded amount was reasonable based on the deceased’s age and income, applying statutory principles on compensation calculations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and accident details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from the insurance company and response from claimants. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning regarding compensation calculations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
Order
08/07/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , challenging the award dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.191/2014 (1923/2011), whereby an amount of Rs. 8,13,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, has been awarded in favour of claimant/respondents Nos.1 to 6.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 06.02.2011, an accident was occurred when Bajrang Lal was returning from Mehroli to Reengus on the motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ- 14-SR-8075, and while crossing B.R. Polytechnic College, a truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14-2G-8269, was coming from opposite side in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and consequently, the deceased- Bajrang Lal sustained injuries and died at the spot.
3. It was submitted by the claimant/respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased- Bajrang Lal was 28 years of age and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimants praying for awarding of just compensation.
4. Non-claimants/Respondent Nos.7 & 8 despite service, did not appear, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them on 19.03.2012 and non-claimant/respondent No.9 also did not appear despite service, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on 27.02.2012.
5. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition wherein they have denied the averments made in claim petition and submitted that the owner and Insurance Company of motorcycle had not been impleaded as party, therefore, for want of necessary party, the claim petition be dismissed. The insurance company further stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the motorcycle and the FIR has been lodged with a delay of one day, therefore, the claim petition may kindly be dismissed.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, on 19.07.2012 learned Tribunal has framed four issues.
7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Smt. Geeta Devi, AW-2 Shanker Lal and AW-3 Mohan Singh and produced the documents as Ex.1 to 17.
8. The appellant- Insurance Company despite granting opportunity not to led any evidence.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal, by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- future prospects and after excluding 1/4 as personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 17, awarded a compensation of Rs.8,13,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
10. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company.
11. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company submits that from the site plan Ex.4 and statements of AW-3, it is evident that there is a contradiction about the place of occurrence of the accident, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation by considering the future prospects @
50% and income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/-, which is on a higher side.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/repondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant and submitted that from the FIR (Ex.1) and charge-sheet (Ex.2), the involvement of vehicle is well established. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, after due consideration of facts evidence and relevant law, awarded a just compensation
