Oriental Insurance Company Ltd And Ors vs Jubeda And Anr

,

The present appeals and cross objection have filed by the appellants and cross-objector claiming the following reliefs :-,

“In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal NO.846/2002,

It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the impugned judgment and award may kindly be set aside and the",

owner of the Vehicle RJH 6157, may be directed to make the payment of the award amount to the claimant respondent no.1.",

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.644/2000,

It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the impugned judgment and award may kindly be set aside and the",

owner of the Vehicle RJH 6157 may be directed to make the payment of the award amount to the claimant respondent no.1.,

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Cross Objection No.30/2003,

That the appeal may kindly be allowed and the award may kindly be enhanced suitably.,

That the interest may kindly be awarded at the rate of 12 % from the filing of the claim petition.â€​,

An unfortunate accident had happened on 08.07.1994 at about 6.00 P.M. between Village Kankroli and Nathdawara, when a truck bearing",

registration no.RJH 6157 being driven rashly and negligently, met with an accident, because of a dog coming on the road, which resulted into the truck",

turning turtle. The said accident resulted into death of Prem Singh (driver) and Mansoor Mohammed (Khalasi).,

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the fact of the truck being driven by one Chunilal is a concocted fact, as",

originally in the claim petition as well as in the FIR, the name of truck driver was mentioned as Prem Singh.",

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submits that if deceased Prem Singh was the driver, then as per the information of",

the Insurance Company since he was not holding a valid license, therefore, the liability under the award would be fastened upon the owner of the",

truck.,

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the record of the case has been tempered with so as to substitute,

the actual driver for creating the liability upon the Insurance Company. It is also contended that the wife of deceased Prem Singh and the injured,

witness travelling in the truck in question as well as Mangu Mohammad, have clearly deposed that the truck was being driven by deceased Prem",

Singh and thus, Chunilal cannot be said to be a driver of the said truck.",

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also submits that although there is no liability upon the Insurance company, however, since",

the complete amount has been paid, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court may order that the Insurance Company be empowered to recover",

the amount already paid from the owner of the vehicle in question.,

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant Mr. Sandeep Sarpuria, however, submits that after thorough investigation, challan was filed by the",

police for rash and negligent driving while treating Chunilal to be a driver.,

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant also submits that the FIR did not contain the name of the driver but only named two of the occupants.,

It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has thoroughly applied its mind while deciding the issue no.1 and has held that the investigation made,

by the Insurance Company was not supported by any evidence, as the investigator Mr. K.K. Sharma had expired by that time.",

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants further points out that learned Tribunal has clearly held that the investigation done by the investigator,

was not substantiated by the supporting proof which could establish the case of the Insurance Company that Chunilal was not driver of the truck in,

question.,

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has also pointed out that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the probable evidence was,

sufficiently led in the claim petition, in the circumstances when the basic facts of the case are not disputed. The basic undisputed facts are that truck",

bearing registration no. RJH 6157 met with an accident and Mansoor Mohammad and Prem Singh expired as a result of the said accident, the truck in",

question was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company was covering the accident.,

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant also submits that the claimant’s cross-objection pertaining to the enhancement is relevant,",

because the only compensation of Rs.75,000/- has been awarded, whereas as per the precedent law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the",

case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ; AIR 2017 SC 5157, the computation ought to have been much more.",

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal of the Insurance",

Company cannot be allowed, as the core questions of the vehicle in question, death in question and liability in question are admitted by the Insurance",

Company and the only dispute is pertaining to the name of the driver.,

This Court also takes note of the fact that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue no.1 in which, it has been held that the investigator of the",

Insurance cannot be believed, whereas the challan has rightly been filed against Chunilal, and moreover, the probable facts have been established.",

Thus, this Court is of the clear opinion that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award and thus, appeals of the Insurance Company bearing no.",

CMA No.846/2002 and CMA No.644/2000 do not call for any interference, hence, the same are dismissed. However, the cross objection preferred",

by the claimant bearing no.30/2003 deserves to be allowed because the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is of a very meagre sum.,

For allowing the cross-objection, this Court deems it appropriate to adhere to the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National",

Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), while taking the facts, as it is, as arrived at by the Tribunal and taking the age of Mansoor",

Mohammed in the post-mortem report i.e. 30 years, while taking Rs.30,000/- as minimum wage, as per the revised guidelines for settlement in MACT",

cases as issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 05.11.2018.,

Thereafter, learned counsel for the parties, thus, upon direction of this Court, submitted a joint re-computation while adhering to the guidelines laid",

down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). Such joint re-computation as furnished by learned counsel for the,

Age of the Deceased,30 years

Multiplier,17

Future Prospects,40%

Personal Expenses Deduction,½

Yearly Income of the Deceased,"Rs.30,000/-

Yearly Income after adding Future Prospects,"Rs.42,000/-

Yearly Income after deducting Personal Expenses,"Rs.21,000/-

Total Income after applying Multiplier,"Rs.3,57,000/-

Other Conventional Heads,"Rs.30,000/-