National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors.

Decided On : May-10-2004

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Prakash Tatia',
			(int) 1 => 'Sapala',
			(int) 2 => 'Rawat',
			(int) 3 => 'Susheela',
			(int) 4 => 'Murari',
			(int) 5 => 'Nakoda',
			(int) 6 => 'Ithari',
			(int) 7 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 8 => 'Ex.84',
			(int) 9 => 'India',
			(int) 10 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 11 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => '54/2002',
			(int) 14 => '54/2002'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian',
			(int) 2 => 'Indian'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellant Insurance',
			(int) 1 => 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Jeep',
			(int) 3 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 4 => 'Tilok Chand',
			(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'another Ramesh @ Kalu',
			(int) 7 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 8 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 9 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 10 => 'Tilok Chand',
			(int) 11 => 'Tilok Chand.(vii',
			(int) 12 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 13 => 'The Insurance Company',
			(int) 14 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 18 => 'U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors',
			(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman',
			(int) 22 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 23 => 'the Income Tax Authorities',
			(int) 24 => 'the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 25 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 27 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 28 => 'the Andhra Pradesh High Court',
			(int) 29 => 'High Court',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 32 => 'Delhi High Court',
			(int) 33 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Hindustan Zinc Limited',
			(int) 36 => 'Ors',
			(int) 37 => 'Court',
			(int) 38 => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 41 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 42 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 43 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 44 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 45 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 46 => 'Siligudi',
			(int) 47 => 'Rakesh Hardware',
			(int) 48 => 'Nepaii',
			(int) 49 => 'Nepal of Rs',
			(int) 50 => 'Siligudi',
			(int) 51 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => '173rd',
			(int) 54 => 'Court',
			(int) 55 => 'Smt',
			(int) 56 => 'Smt',
			(int) 57 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 58 => 'Smt'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'five',
			(int) 1 => 'five',
			(int) 2 => 'nine',
			(int) 3 => '11.07.2003.2',
			(int) 4 => 'seven',
			(int) 5 => 'One',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '53/2002).by',
			(int) 8 => '28.6.2002',
			(int) 9 => '196/2002',
			(int) 10 => '279',
			(int) 11 => '337',
			(int) 12 => '338',
			(int) 13 => '41,72,000/-',
			(int) 14 => '55/2002',
			(int) 15 => '13,50,000/-',
			(int) 16 => '22,50,000/-',
			(int) 17 => '57/2002',
			(int) 18 => '55,90,000/-',
			(int) 19 => '58/2002',
			(int) 20 => 'four',
			(int) 21 => '60/2002',
			(int) 22 => 'two',
			(int) 23 => '61/2002',
			(int) 24 => '28.6.2002.(ix',
			(int) 25 => '6,32,560/-.3',
			(int) 26 => '6,24,194/-(ii',
			(int) 27 => '3,09,340/-(v',
			(int) 28 => '1,58,500/-(vi',
			(int) 29 => '1,78,435/-(vii',
			(int) 30 => '2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------4',
			(int) 31 => 'five',
			(int) 32 => '53/02',
			(int) 33 => '54/02',
			(int) 34 => '55/02',
			(int) 35 => '56/02',
			(int) 36 => '60/02',
			(int) 37 => '1',
			(int) 38 => '2',
			(int) 39 => '3',
			(int) 40 => '36,000/-',
			(int) 41 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 42 => '5-10',
			(int) 43 => '24,000/-',
			(int) 44 => '15',
			(int) 45 => '4).7',
			(int) 46 => 'one',
			(int) 47 => 'two',
			(int) 48 => 'only 17',
			(int) 49 => '54/2002',
			(int) 50 => '17',
			(int) 51 => 'only 20,000/-',
			(int) 52 => 'only 5',
			(int) 53 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 54 => '8',
			(int) 55 => '2,88,840/-',
			(int) 56 => '48,31,812/-',
			(int) 57 => '60/2002',
			(int) 58 => '5',
			(int) 59 => '48,600/-',
			(int) 60 => '6',
			(int) 61 => '8)',
			(int) 62 => '9',
			(int) 63 => '10).10',
			(int) 64 => 'four',
			(int) 65 => '9.10.2001',
			(int) 66 => '28.6.2002',
			(int) 67 => '60/2002',
			(int) 68 => 'one',
			(int) 69 => 'two',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => 'more than four',
			(int) 72 => '31.3.2002',
			(int) 73 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 74 => '17',
			(int) 75 => '17',
			(int) 76 => '5,000/-',
			(int) 77 => 'millions',
			(int) 78 => 'more than one third',
			(int) 79 => 'more than one third',
			(int) 80 => 'two',
			(int) 81 => 'one',
			(int) 82 => 'two',
			(int) 83 => 'two',
			(int) 84 => 'two',
			(int) 85 => 'two',
			(int) 86 => 'two',
			(int) 87 => 'two',
			(int) 88 => 'more than 1/3rd',
			(int) 89 => '60/2002',
			(int) 90 => 'two',
			(int) 91 => 'One',
			(int) 92 => 'One',
			(int) 93 => 'two',
			(int) 94 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 95 => 'five',
			(int) 96 => '55/2002',
			(int) 97 => 'only 8'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rajgarh',
			(int) 1 => 'Ami Lal',
			(int) 2 => 'Ami Lal',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajgarh',
			(int) 4 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 5 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 6 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 7 => 'Rawat Mal',
			(int) 8 => 'Ram Kishan',
			(int) 9 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 10 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 11 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 12 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 13 => 'Mangi Lal's',
			(int) 14 => 'Mangi Lal.(ii',
			(int) 15 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 16 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 17 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 18 => 'Mahesh Kumar',
			(int) 19 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 20 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 21 => 'Ravi Kant',
			(int) 22 => 'Shashi Kant',
			(int) 23 => 'Dhapa Bai',
			(int) 24 => 'Mahaveer Prasad.(vi',
			(int) 25 => 'Gayatri Devi',
			(int) 26 => 'Ramesh Goyal',
			(int) 27 => 'Ram Kishan',
			(int) 28 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 29 => 'Anr',
			(int) 30 => 'Jasbir Kaur',
			(int) 31 => 'Trilok Chandra',
			(int) 32 => 'Anr',
			(int) 33 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 34 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 35 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 36 => 'Rukmani Devi',
			(int) 37 => 'Ahmad Bi',
			(int) 38 => 'Anr',
			(int) 39 => 'Patricia Jean Mahajan',
			(int) 40 => 'M.L. Khuteda',
			(int) 41 => 'Ramesh Singh',
			(int) 42 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 43 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 44 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 45 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 46 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 47 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 48 => 'Mohini Devi'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '28.06.2002',
			(int) 1 => '10C 1764',
			(int) 2 => '56/2002',
			(int) 3 => 'a period of',
			(int) 4 => 'two months',
			(int) 5 => '1988',
			(int) 6 => '1988',
			(int) 7 => 'these five',
			(int) 8 => 'annual',
			(int) 9 => '34-59 years',
			(int) 10 => '62-72 years',
			(int) 11 => 'the age of',
			(int) 12 => '10-15 years',
			(int) 13 => 'annual',
			(int) 14 => 'the age of 58 years',
			(int) 15 => 'the age of 32 years',
			(int) 16 => 'age of 32 years',
			(int) 17 => 'the age of 30 years',
			(int) 18 => '55/2002',
			(int) 19 => '56/2002',
			(int) 20 => 'the age of 50 years',
			(int) 21 => ''12',
			(int) 22 => 'the age of 25 years',
			(int) 23 => 'monthly',
			(int) 24 => '89',
			(int) 25 => '85',
			(int) 26 => 'annual',
			(int) 27 => 'annual',
			(int) 28 => 'annual',
			(int) 29 => 'the age of 25 years',
			(int) 30 => 'annual',
			(int) 31 => 'annual',
			(int) 32 => 'annual',
			(int) 33 => 'age ten',
			(int) 34 => '55/2002',
			(int) 35 => 'the age of 65 years',
			(int) 36 => '56/2002',
			(int) 37 => 'the age of 50 years'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Delhi-Bikaner Road'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4.00 p.m.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '304A',
			(int) 1 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 2 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 3 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 4 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 7 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 8 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 9 => 'Rakesh Kumar'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Claim Petition No',
			(int) 1 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 2 => 'Lata Wadhwa and Ors',
			(int) 3 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 4 => 'Lata Wadhwa',
			(int) 5 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 6 => 'Prakash and Ors',
			(int) 7 => 'Devi and Ors',
			(int) 8 => 'Claim Case',
			(int) 9 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 10 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 11 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 12 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 13 => 'Claim Case No. 56/2002.17'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9%',
			(int) 1 => '12%'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ex.76'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759097',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 149 and 170',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 852 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No.                         Claim Case No.             Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (i)                            53/2002                 Rs. 6,24,194/-
 (ii)                           54/2002                 Rs. 8,27,900/-
 (iii)                          55/2002                 Rs. 1,70,500/-
 (iv)                           56/2002                 Rs. 3,09,340/-
 (v)                            57/2002                 Rs. 1,58,500/-
 (vi)                           58/2002                 Rs. 1,78,435/-
 (vii)                          60/2002                 Rs. 48,31,812/-
(viii)                          61/2002                 Rs.    66,324/-
 (ix)                           08/2002                 Rs.  2,46.709/-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
',
			'counselplain' => ' Jagdish Vyas, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Arun Bhansali, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-05-10',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Prakash Tatia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Prakash Tatia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 10C 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh @ Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Delhi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and challan was filed against the said Murari Lal under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 338, I.P.C. The claims were:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The Claim Petition No. 53/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Ors. claiming compensation of Rs. 41,72,000/- on account of death of Mangi Lal. The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) The Claim Petition No. 54/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Others due to death of Smt. Kanta w/o of deceased Mangi Lal. In this claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 54,38,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) In Claim Petition No. 55/2002 claimants Mahesh Kumar and Others claimed compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- on account of death of Mohini Devi. Mohini Devi was mother of the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) In Claim Petition No. 56/2002, Ravi Kant and Shashi Kant claimed compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of death of their father Rawat Mal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(v) In Claim Petition No. 57/2002, the claimants Dhapa Bai w/o Mahaveer Prasad and sons of Mahaveer Prasad claimed compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- on account of death of death of Mahaveer Prasad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vi) In Claim Petition No. 58/2002, claimants Gayatri Devi and four sons of deceased Tilok Chand claimed compensation of Rs. 17,38.000/- on account of death of Tilok Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vii) In Claim Petition No. 60/2002, Smt. Mamta w/o of deceased Rakesh Kumar and two minor sons of the deceased Rakesh Kumar and mother of, Rakesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 4,66,70,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(viii) In Claim Petition No. 61/2002, claimant Ramesh Goyal claimed compensation of Rs. 3,61,288/- as he suffered injuries in the said accident dated 28.6.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ix) In Claim Petition No. 8/2003, the injured Ram Kishan claimed compensation of Rs. 6,32,560/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation as mentioned below:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Claim Case No. Amount-----------------------------------------------------------------------(i) 53/2002 Rs. 6,24,194/-(ii) 54/2002 Rs. 8,27,900/-(iii) 55/2002 Rs. 1,70,500/-(iv) 56/2002 Rs. 3,09,340/-(v) 57/2002 Rs. 1,58,500/-(vi) 58/2002 Rs. 1,78,435/-(vii) 60/2002 Rs. 48,31,812/-(viii) 61/2002 Rs. 66,324/-(ix) 08/2002 Rs. 2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum in case the amount is deposited by the non-applicant including the appellant within a period of two months from the date of award and, in default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant has challenged the five awards passed in Claim Cases No. 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02 and 60/02 only on other grounds also, other than the grounds which are available to the appellant under Section 149 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as the appellants were granted permission to contest the claim petitions on merit by the tribunal under Section 170 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jeep involved in the accident was registered and insured for the private use only whereas the same was used for carrying the passengers for higher and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company also challenged the quantum of compensation which has been awarded in these five appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Though the ground was taken by the appellant against the award on account of vehicle being registered as private vehicle but was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward but in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the compensation amount awarded to the claimants on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in the case of claim of compensation when death is caused in the accident, compensation can be awarded only which is just compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. (1), held that just compensation means and implies fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness and according to the leaned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in all these cases cannot be said to be just compensation. The ground for saying 'not just compensation' will be dealt with in the subsequent paras when the individual case will be considered, the learned counsel for the appellant also relief upon earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (2), The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (3), wherein on account of death of house wife in accident, the annual contribution of the housewife was assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum for the age group of 34-59 years and Rs. 20,000/- for the age group of 62-72 years and in the case of death of children of 5-10, the just compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,00,000/- and where children of the age of 10-15 years died, the annual contribution of the said deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Anr. (4).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The learned counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that the present is the gravest of the grave case where was many as seven persons belonging to one family and relations died. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the mother and father of two minor children died in the accident in the young age and even the mother of the deceased is of the age of 58 years only, therefore, award of compensation of Rs. 6,24,000/- and odd in the Claim Case No. 53/2002 and award of compensation of Rs. 8,27,000/- in the Claim Case No. 54/2002 cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust. It is also submitted that the deceased Mangi Lal was of the age of 32 years only. His income has been proved by trustworthy documentary evidence of income tax return. There was no reason for any deduction from the income of the deceased which has been shown in the even return as the actual income may be much more higher than the income shown in the return because even as per the law, the assessee is entitled for certain benefits of tax deductions. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, in case of death of young person of age of 32 years, the tribunal applied multiplier of only 17. It is also submitted that in Claim case No. 54/2002, the tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only even when the deceased Kanta was of the age of 30 years only. The income of the deceased Kanta was assessed on the basis of the certificate of Income Ex.99. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, in Claim Case No. 55/2002, the total compensation awarded to the claimants was on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and in this case, loss to the claimant was assessed only 20,000/- per annum and the multiplier of only 5 was applied. In the claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years only. He was doing the business and his income was assessed by the Income Tax Authorities. The tribunal relied upon the income shown in the income tax return and thereafter deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and applied multiplier of 8 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,88,840/- on account of loss of income to the claimants. In reply to the serious objection about award of compensation of Rs. 48,31,812/- in Claim Case No. 60/2002, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently submitted that the just compensation is the compensation for which the claimants are entitled in accordance with law and the tribunal and the courts cannot be swayed by the large amount of compensation only. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. It is also submitted that even in appeal, there appears to be no ground to justify the argument of the appellant by which the appellant wants to challenge the quantum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal in all the cases is, in fact, on the lowest possible side because in all the case, the tribunal did not add any amount while determining the compensation after taking into consideration the future prospects of increase in income of the deceased persons. Therefore, even if any case is made out for interference in the impugned award then it is the case where compensation amount can be increased only. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also submitted that despite permission to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-Insurance Company could not produce any evidence in rebuttal so far as the claim amount is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants relied upon the various judgment; Rukmani Devi and Ors. v. Om Prakash and Ors. (5). In that case, the deceased was doing the business in partnership which was continued by the family members after his death, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was reduced by the High Court in appeal to Rs. 48,600/- but Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Susheela and Ors. v. Ahmad Bi and Ors. (6), wherein High Court even refused to deduct any amount from the income of the deceased on account of his income tax liability or professional tax liability. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, when further prospects of earning was not taken into account, this Court (by me) interfered in the award of the tribunal and the claim amount was enhanced in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sajni Devi and Ors. (7). It is also submitted that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (8), held that income tax return of the deceased is admissible in evidence without any further proof and held assessment of compensation on the basis of income tax return as a valid basis for assessment of the income of the deceased and loss to the claimants. It is also submitted that this Court (by me) in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M.L. Khuteda and Ors. (9), enhanced the compensation amount when the claimant was even father of the deceased. It is also submitted that when claimants are major, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimants as held by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors. (10).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the accident is concerned, it cannot be disputed, there is no dispute that respondent Murari Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, in view of the evidence produced by the claimants, the claimants fully established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Murari Lal. The appellant has not challenged this Finding in four claim cases which have been decided against the appellant and this Court also do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal holding driver Murari lal guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and causing the accident. The tribunal rightly held that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period from 9.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 and the accident occurred during this period on 28.6.2002. the tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant Insurance Company that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation because the deceased and the injured were near relatives of the owner of the vehicle, therefore, they cannot be treated as third party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, only question survives for determination in these appeals is with respect to the challenge to the quantum awarded in various cases. Before consideringany other evidence, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant produced their witness NAW-1 Mool Chand Surana only who admitted that the vehicle wasinsured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant-Insurance Company is liableto pay the compensation amount provided it is proved that the vehicle was insured and it was driven by the driver with valid driving licence, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable, therefore, so far as rebuttal to the evidence of the claimants relating to the accident, death and injuries to the persons mentioned above and claimof quantum as claimed by the claimants is not there at all from the side of appellant Insurance Company.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It will be just and appropriate to take Claim Case No. 60/2002 wherein compensation of total Rs. 48,31,812/- has been awarded to the claimants. In this claim case, one Rakesh Kumar, who was of the age of 25 years only and was doing the business in the name of Nakoda novelties at Siligudi and in the name of Rakesh Hardware at Ithari, Nepal. From the business at two places, the deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting monthly income of Rs. 67,000/-. It is submitted that in due course of time, the income of the deceased Rakesh Kumar would have increased to at least Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. At the time of unfortunate death in the accident, Rakesh Kumar left behind two sons and his widow. The claimants produced documentary evidence of the income of the deceased as Ex.76 and Ex.91A. On the basis of above, the claimants claimed compensation of more than four crores rupees. As per Ex.88A and 89, deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting income of Rs. 5,90,000/- which was converted into Indian rupees from the Nepaii currency and the tribunal held that the deceased had income from business at Nepal of Rs. 3,72,204/- per annum in Indian currency. In view of Ex.84 and 85 which are the documents received from the income Tax Officer, Siligudi, contained the statement up to 31.3.2002 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 51,000/- thereby the deceased has total annual income (in India and from Nepal business) of Rs. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. Said documents were produced and were exhibited, there was no objection about the admissibility of the said documents and there is no evidence in rebuttal from the appellant about income of the deceased. Even in cross-examination of the claimants' evidence, nothing has come out which casts any doubt on the said documents. Therefore, so far as the assessment of the annual income of the deceased is concerned, here is no illegality committed by the tribunal. The tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and assessed the loss to the claimants only Rs. 2,82,136/- per annum. The tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only in case where the deceased was of the age of 25 years. The tribunal has not committed any illegality in applying multiplier of 17 in the facts of this case. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. In view of the above trustworthy evidence, the tribunal has calculated the loss which is just and reasonable only. Total sum arrived at on the basis of trustworthy evidence, then it cannot be challenged only by pointing out towards the figure and by saying that amount is huge. Allowing lesser amount to the claimants than for which they are entitled will be arbitrary and will be unjust. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the quantum as unjust by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that compensation must be just and should not be awarded arbitrarily. Applying same principle, it can be held that deduction also cannot be made arbitrarily and compensation cannot be reduced arbitrarily merely be saying the total sum calculated runs millions of rupees. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had no answer to argument of the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the tribunal has no taken into account the further prospects of the earning of the deceased Rakesh Kumar while assessing loss to the claimants. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction from the income of the deceased on account of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his total annual assessed income because the deceased has his business at two places; one in Nepal and another in India. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. It is also submitted that normal practice of deduction of 173rd amount of total income from the total annual income cannot be applied in the facts of this case. It is true that the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for keeping his business and residence at two places and for travelling in between two places but even if the said deduction is increased from the total income of the deceased, it will not affect the total amount awarded to the claimants, rather as held above, if the further prospects of earning of the deceased is counted to determine the compensation amount, the compensation amount would rise more than the amount which would be after deducting more than 1/3rd of the amount of the annual assessed income of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts of this case, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal in this claim case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. So far as Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002 are concerned, both have been filed by mother and wife of deceased Mangi Lal. Their cases are also similar to the Claim Case No. 60/2002. It is true that one of the claimants Smt. Geeta Devi is the mother of the deceased Mangi Lal and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Kanta. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a case where claimants are mother and father, the amount can be awarded by applying multiplier on the basis of the age of mother and father of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. I considered the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled law that there cannot be a water type jacket formula for determining compensation for the claimants, therefore, the courts have evolved a mode of calculation of the compensation which may be awarded to the claimants in the cases of death of any person in the accident. The determination of compensation and award to the claimants have two facets. One is the actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of a person in a accident and another is the amount for which claimant/claimants is/are entitled. It is just and proper for the tribunal to first determine the loss which has been caused due to death of victims in the accident irrespective of entitlement of the claimants. The amount for which the claimants are entitled cannot affect actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of victim in the accident. The claimant, if are entitled for the total amount of determined pecuniary loss as determined above, the same may be awarded to the claimant. Even in case where there is only one claimant, it is not always necessary that he shall be entitled for the total assessed loss. One of such case is where the claimants are the parents. The claimants are entitled for reimbursement of loss to the extent to which they suffered only. In the cases where the claimants are parents or persons of the age more than that of the victim then their loss is only to the extent which they would have got in their life time from the victim in case he would not have died. The said claimants are not entitled to the amount which they would not have got during their life time. Therefore, after determination of annual pecuniary loss caused due to the death of the victim in accident, the multiplier, looking to the age of the claimant, may be applied which would be the sufficient compensation amount for the claimant. In a case where parents themselves are of young age ten they may get the compensation to the extent of total loss assessed by applying multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased. This depends upon facts of each case. The matter can be examined from a different angle. In accident claim case where some one died, there may be one claimant, he may get the entire amount of the loss assessed but in case where there are more claimants, one's claim stands reduced as the claim amount is required to be distributed among all the claimants, therefore, the claimants' entitlement of the claim is different then the amount of the loss assessed. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot have any say how the claim amount should be apportioned between the claimants. The tribunal is required to pass the award specifying the separate amount which each claimant is entitled and for that purpose again the age of the parents is relevant factor while determining the claim amount for the parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Here in there cases, admittedly, in Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002, the claimants are wife and two minor sons of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for the total amount as awarded by the tribunal. Whereas, in the Claim Case No. 55/2002, the claimants are children of the deceased Smt. Mohini Devi, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the total amount awarded by the tribunal. In this case, the tribunal assessed income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the lady of the age of 65 years and applied multiplier of five only. Therefore, no fault can be fond out from the reasons given in the award passed in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 55/2002. In Claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years. The deceased was income tax assessee and his income, as per the income tax assessment, was Rs. 36.105/- per annum and multiplier of only 8 was applied. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the award by the tribunal in Claim Case No. 56/2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. in view of the above reasons, I do not find any force in these appeals and hence the appeals of the appellant are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'III(2004)ACC355; 2006ACJ292; RLW2004(4)Raj2279; 2004(3)WLC489',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ravi Kant and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759097'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Prakash Tatia',
		(int) 1 => 'Sapala',
		(int) 2 => 'Rawat',
		(int) 3 => 'Susheela',
		(int) 4 => 'Murari',
		(int) 5 => 'Nakoda',
		(int) 6 => 'Ithari',
		(int) 7 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 8 => 'Ex.84',
		(int) 9 => 'India',
		(int) 10 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 11 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => '54/2002',
		(int) 14 => '54/2002'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian',
		(int) 2 => 'Indian'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellant Insurance',
		(int) 1 => 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Jeep',
		(int) 3 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 4 => 'Tilok Chand',
		(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'another Ramesh @ Kalu',
		(int) 7 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 8 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 9 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 10 => 'Tilok Chand',
		(int) 11 => 'Tilok Chand.(vii',
		(int) 12 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 13 => 'The Insurance Company',
		(int) 14 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 18 => 'U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors',
		(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman',
		(int) 22 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 23 => 'the Income Tax Authorities',
		(int) 24 => 'the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 25 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 27 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 28 => 'the Andhra Pradesh High Court',
		(int) 29 => 'High Court',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 32 => 'Delhi High Court',
		(int) 33 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Hindustan Zinc Limited',
		(int) 36 => 'Ors',
		(int) 37 => 'Court',
		(int) 38 => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 41 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 42 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 43 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 44 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 45 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 46 => 'Siligudi',
		(int) 47 => 'Rakesh Hardware',
		(int) 48 => 'Nepaii',
		(int) 49 => 'Nepal of Rs',
		(int) 50 => 'Siligudi',
		(int) 51 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => '173rd',
		(int) 54 => 'Court',
		(int) 55 => 'Smt',
		(int) 56 => 'Smt',
		(int) 57 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 58 => 'Smt'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'five',
		(int) 1 => 'five',
		(int) 2 => 'nine',
		(int) 3 => '11.07.2003.2',
		(int) 4 => 'seven',
		(int) 5 => 'One',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '53/2002).by',
		(int) 8 => '28.6.2002',
		(int) 9 => '196/2002',
		(int) 10 => '279',
		(int) 11 => '337',
		(int) 12 => '338',
		(int) 13 => '41,72,000/-',
		(int) 14 => '55/2002',
		(int) 15 => '13,50,000/-',
		(int) 16 => '22,50,000/-',
		(int) 17 => '57/2002',
		(int) 18 => '55,90,000/-',
		(int) 19 => '58/2002',
		(int) 20 => 'four',
		(int) 21 => '60/2002',
		(int) 22 => 'two',
		(int) 23 => '61/2002',
		(int) 24 => '28.6.2002.(ix',
		(int) 25 => '6,32,560/-.3',
		(int) 26 => '6,24,194/-(ii',
		(int) 27 => '3,09,340/-(v',
		(int) 28 => '1,58,500/-(vi',
		(int) 29 => '1,78,435/-(vii',
		(int) 30 => '2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------4',
		(int) 31 => 'five',
		(int) 32 => '53/02',
		(int) 33 => '54/02',
		(int) 34 => '55/02',
		(int) 35 => '56/02',
		(int) 36 => '60/02',
		(int) 37 => '1',
		(int) 38 => '2',
		(int) 39 => '3',
		(int) 40 => '36,000/-',
		(int) 41 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 42 => '5-10',
		(int) 43 => '24,000/-',
		(int) 44 => '15',
		(int) 45 => '4).7',
		(int) 46 => 'one',
		(int) 47 => 'two',
		(int) 48 => 'only 17',
		(int) 49 => '54/2002',
		(int) 50 => '17',
		(int) 51 => 'only 20,000/-',
		(int) 52 => 'only 5',
		(int) 53 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 54 => '8',
		(int) 55 => '2,88,840/-',
		(int) 56 => '48,31,812/-',
		(int) 57 => '60/2002',
		(int) 58 => '5',
		(int) 59 => '48,600/-',
		(int) 60 => '6',
		(int) 61 => '8)',
		(int) 62 => '9',
		(int) 63 => '10).10',
		(int) 64 => 'four',
		(int) 65 => '9.10.2001',
		(int) 66 => '28.6.2002',
		(int) 67 => '60/2002',
		(int) 68 => 'one',
		(int) 69 => 'two',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => 'more than four',
		(int) 72 => '31.3.2002',
		(int) 73 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 74 => '17',
		(int) 75 => '17',
		(int) 76 => '5,000/-',
		(int) 77 => 'millions',
		(int) 78 => 'more than one third',
		(int) 79 => 'more than one third',
		(int) 80 => 'two',
		(int) 81 => 'one',
		(int) 82 => 'two',
		(int) 83 => 'two',
		(int) 84 => 'two',
		(int) 85 => 'two',
		(int) 86 => 'two',
		(int) 87 => 'two',
		(int) 88 => 'more than 1/3rd',
		(int) 89 => '60/2002',
		(int) 90 => 'two',
		(int) 91 => 'One',
		(int) 92 => 'One',
		(int) 93 => 'two',
		(int) 94 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 95 => 'five',
		(int) 96 => '55/2002',
		(int) 97 => 'only 8'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rajgarh',
		(int) 1 => 'Ami Lal',
		(int) 2 => 'Ami Lal',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajgarh',
		(int) 4 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 5 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 6 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 7 => 'Rawat Mal',
		(int) 8 => 'Ram Kishan',
		(int) 9 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 10 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 11 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 12 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 13 => 'Mangi Lal's',
		(int) 14 => 'Mangi Lal.(ii',
		(int) 15 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 16 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 17 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 18 => 'Mahesh Kumar',
		(int) 19 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 20 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 21 => 'Ravi Kant',
		(int) 22 => 'Shashi Kant',
		(int) 23 => 'Dhapa Bai',
		(int) 24 => 'Mahaveer Prasad.(vi',
		(int) 25 => 'Gayatri Devi',
		(int) 26 => 'Ramesh Goyal',
		(int) 27 => 'Ram Kishan',
		(int) 28 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 29 => 'Anr',
		(int) 30 => 'Jasbir Kaur',
		(int) 31 => 'Trilok Chandra',
		(int) 32 => 'Anr',
		(int) 33 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 34 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 35 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 36 => 'Rukmani Devi',
		(int) 37 => 'Ahmad Bi',
		(int) 38 => 'Anr',
		(int) 39 => 'Patricia Jean Mahajan',
		(int) 40 => 'M.L. Khuteda',
		(int) 41 => 'Ramesh Singh',
		(int) 42 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 43 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 44 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 45 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 46 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 47 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 48 => 'Mohini Devi'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '28.06.2002',
		(int) 1 => '10C 1764',
		(int) 2 => '56/2002',
		(int) 3 => 'a period of',
		(int) 4 => 'two months',
		(int) 5 => '1988',
		(int) 6 => '1988',
		(int) 7 => 'these five',
		(int) 8 => 'annual',
		(int) 9 => '34-59 years',
		(int) 10 => '62-72 years',
		(int) 11 => 'the age of',
		(int) 12 => '10-15 years',
		(int) 13 => 'annual',
		(int) 14 => 'the age of 58 years',
		(int) 15 => 'the age of 32 years',
		(int) 16 => 'age of 32 years',
		(int) 17 => 'the age of 30 years',
		(int) 18 => '55/2002',
		(int) 19 => '56/2002',
		(int) 20 => 'the age of 50 years',
		(int) 21 => ''12',
		(int) 22 => 'the age of 25 years',
		(int) 23 => 'monthly',
		(int) 24 => '89',
		(int) 25 => '85',
		(int) 26 => 'annual',
		(int) 27 => 'annual',
		(int) 28 => 'annual',
		(int) 29 => 'the age of 25 years',
		(int) 30 => 'annual',
		(int) 31 => 'annual',
		(int) 32 => 'annual',
		(int) 33 => 'age ten',
		(int) 34 => '55/2002',
		(int) 35 => 'the age of 65 years',
		(int) 36 => '56/2002',
		(int) 37 => 'the age of 50 years'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Delhi-Bikaner Road'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4.00 p.m.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '304A',
		(int) 1 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 2 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 3 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 4 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 7 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 8 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 9 => 'Rakesh Kumar'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Claim Petition No',
		(int) 1 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 2 => 'Lata Wadhwa and Ors',
		(int) 3 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 4 => 'Lata Wadhwa',
		(int) 5 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 6 => 'Prakash and Ors',
		(int) 7 => 'Devi and Ors',
		(int) 8 => 'Claim Case',
		(int) 9 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 10 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 11 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 12 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 13 => 'Claim Case No. 56/2002.17'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9%',
		(int) 1 => '12%'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ex.76'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759097',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 149 and 170',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 852 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No.                         Claim Case No.             Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (i)                            53/2002                 Rs. 6,24,194/-
 (ii)                           54/2002                 Rs. 8,27,900/-
 (iii)                          55/2002                 Rs. 1,70,500/-
 (iv)                           56/2002                 Rs. 3,09,340/-
 (v)                            57/2002                 Rs. 1,58,500/-
 (vi)                           58/2002                 Rs. 1,78,435/-
 (vii)                          60/2002                 Rs. 48,31,812/-
(viii)                          61/2002                 Rs.    66,324/-
 (ix)                           08/2002                 Rs.  2,46.709/-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
',
		'counselplain' => ' Jagdish Vyas, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Arun Bhansali, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-05-10',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Prakash Tatia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Prakash Tatia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 10C 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh @ Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Delhi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and challan was filed against the said Murari Lal under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 338, I.P.C. The claims were:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The Claim Petition No. 53/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Ors. claiming compensation of Rs. 41,72,000/- on account of death of Mangi Lal. The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) The Claim Petition No. 54/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Others due to death of Smt. Kanta w/o of deceased Mangi Lal. In this claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 54,38,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) In Claim Petition No. 55/2002 claimants Mahesh Kumar and Others claimed compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- on account of death of Mohini Devi. Mohini Devi was mother of the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) In Claim Petition No. 56/2002, Ravi Kant and Shashi Kant claimed compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of death of their father Rawat Mal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(v) In Claim Petition No. 57/2002, the claimants Dhapa Bai w/o Mahaveer Prasad and sons of Mahaveer Prasad claimed compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- on account of death of death of Mahaveer Prasad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vi) In Claim Petition No. 58/2002, claimants Gayatri Devi and four sons of deceased Tilok Chand claimed compensation of Rs. 17,38.000/- on account of death of Tilok Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vii) In Claim Petition No. 60/2002, Smt. Mamta w/o of deceased Rakesh Kumar and two minor sons of the deceased Rakesh Kumar and mother of, Rakesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 4,66,70,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(viii) In Claim Petition No. 61/2002, claimant Ramesh Goyal claimed compensation of Rs. 3,61,288/- as he suffered injuries in the said accident dated 28.6.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ix) In Claim Petition No. 8/2003, the injured Ram Kishan claimed compensation of Rs. 6,32,560/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation as mentioned below:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Claim Case No. Amount-----------------------------------------------------------------------(i) 53/2002 Rs. 6,24,194/-(ii) 54/2002 Rs. 8,27,900/-(iii) 55/2002 Rs. 1,70,500/-(iv) 56/2002 Rs. 3,09,340/-(v) 57/2002 Rs. 1,58,500/-(vi) 58/2002 Rs. 1,78,435/-(vii) 60/2002 Rs. 48,31,812/-(viii) 61/2002 Rs. 66,324/-(ix) 08/2002 Rs. 2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum in case the amount is deposited by the non-applicant including the appellant within a period of two months from the date of award and, in default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant has challenged the five awards passed in Claim Cases No. 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02 and 60/02 only on other grounds also, other than the grounds which are available to the appellant under Section 149 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as the appellants were granted permission to contest the claim petitions on merit by the tribunal under Section 170 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jeep involved in the accident was registered and insured for the private use only whereas the same was used for carrying the passengers for higher and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company also challenged the quantum of compensation which has been awarded in these five appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Though the ground was taken by the appellant against the award on account of vehicle being registered as private vehicle but was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward but in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the compensation amount awarded to the claimants on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in the case of claim of compensation when death is caused in the accident, compensation can be awarded only which is just compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. (1), held that just compensation means and implies fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness and according to the leaned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in all these cases cannot be said to be just compensation. The ground for saying 'not just compensation' will be dealt with in the subsequent paras when the individual case will be considered, the learned counsel for the appellant also relief upon earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (2), The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (3), wherein on account of death of house wife in accident, the annual contribution of the housewife was assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum for the age group of 34-59 years and Rs. 20,000/- for the age group of 62-72 years and in the case of death of children of 5-10, the just compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,00,000/- and where children of the age of 10-15 years died, the annual contribution of the said deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Anr. (4).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The learned counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that the present is the gravest of the grave case where was many as seven persons belonging to one family and relations died. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the mother and father of two minor children died in the accident in the young age and even the mother of the deceased is of the age of 58 years only, therefore, award of compensation of Rs. 6,24,000/- and odd in the Claim Case No. 53/2002 and award of compensation of Rs. 8,27,000/- in the Claim Case No. 54/2002 cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust. It is also submitted that the deceased Mangi Lal was of the age of 32 years only. His income has been proved by trustworthy documentary evidence of income tax return. There was no reason for any deduction from the income of the deceased which has been shown in the even return as the actual income may be much more higher than the income shown in the return because even as per the law, the assessee is entitled for certain benefits of tax deductions. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, in case of death of young person of age of 32 years, the tribunal applied multiplier of only 17. It is also submitted that in Claim case No. 54/2002, the tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only even when the deceased Kanta was of the age of 30 years only. The income of the deceased Kanta was assessed on the basis of the certificate of Income Ex.99. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, in Claim Case No. 55/2002, the total compensation awarded to the claimants was on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and in this case, loss to the claimant was assessed only 20,000/- per annum and the multiplier of only 5 was applied. In the claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years only. He was doing the business and his income was assessed by the Income Tax Authorities. The tribunal relied upon the income shown in the income tax return and thereafter deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and applied multiplier of 8 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,88,840/- on account of loss of income to the claimants. In reply to the serious objection about award of compensation of Rs. 48,31,812/- in Claim Case No. 60/2002, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently submitted that the just compensation is the compensation for which the claimants are entitled in accordance with law and the tribunal and the courts cannot be swayed by the large amount of compensation only. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. It is also submitted that even in appeal, there appears to be no ground to justify the argument of the appellant by which the appellant wants to challenge the quantum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal in all the cases is, in fact, on the lowest possible side because in all the case, the tribunal did not add any amount while determining the compensation after taking into consideration the future prospects of increase in income of the deceased persons. Therefore, even if any case is made out for interference in the impugned award then it is the case where compensation amount can be increased only. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also submitted that despite permission to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-Insurance Company could not produce any evidence in rebuttal so far as the claim amount is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants relied upon the various judgment; Rukmani Devi and Ors. v. Om Prakash and Ors. (5). In that case, the deceased was doing the business in partnership which was continued by the family members after his death, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was reduced by the High Court in appeal to Rs. 48,600/- but Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Susheela and Ors. v. Ahmad Bi and Ors. (6), wherein High Court even refused to deduct any amount from the income of the deceased on account of his income tax liability or professional tax liability. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, when further prospects of earning was not taken into account, this Court (by me) interfered in the award of the tribunal and the claim amount was enhanced in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sajni Devi and Ors. (7). It is also submitted that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (8), held that income tax return of the deceased is admissible in evidence without any further proof and held assessment of compensation on the basis of income tax return as a valid basis for assessment of the income of the deceased and loss to the claimants. It is also submitted that this Court (by me) in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M.L. Khuteda and Ors. (9), enhanced the compensation amount when the claimant was even father of the deceased. It is also submitted that when claimants are major, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimants as held by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors. (10).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the accident is concerned, it cannot be disputed, there is no dispute that respondent Murari Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, in view of the evidence produced by the claimants, the claimants fully established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Murari Lal. The appellant has not challenged this Finding in four claim cases which have been decided against the appellant and this Court also do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal holding driver Murari lal guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and causing the accident. The tribunal rightly held that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period from 9.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 and the accident occurred during this period on 28.6.2002. the tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant Insurance Company that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation because the deceased and the injured were near relatives of the owner of the vehicle, therefore, they cannot be treated as third party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, only question survives for determination in these appeals is with respect to the challenge to the quantum awarded in various cases. Before consideringany other evidence, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant produced their witness NAW-1 Mool Chand Surana only who admitted that the vehicle wasinsured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant-Insurance Company is liableto pay the compensation amount provided it is proved that the vehicle was insured and it was driven by the driver with valid driving licence, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable, therefore, so far as rebuttal to the evidence of the claimants relating to the accident, death and injuries to the persons mentioned above and claimof quantum as claimed by the claimants is not there at all from the side of appellant Insurance Company.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It will be just and appropriate to take Claim Case No. 60/2002 wherein compensation of total Rs. 48,31,812/- has been awarded to the claimants. In this claim case, one Rakesh Kumar, who was of the age of 25 years only and was doing the business in the name of Nakoda novelties at Siligudi and in the name of Rakesh Hardware at Ithari, Nepal. From the business at two places, the deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting monthly income of Rs. 67,000/-. It is submitted that in due course of time, the income of the deceased Rakesh Kumar would have increased to at least Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. At the time of unfortunate death in the accident, Rakesh Kumar left behind two sons and his widow. The claimants produced documentary evidence of the income of the deceased as Ex.76 and Ex.91A. On the basis of above, the claimants claimed compensation of more than four crores rupees. As per Ex.88A and 89, deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting income of Rs. 5,90,000/- which was converted into Indian rupees from the Nepaii currency and the tribunal held that the deceased had income from business at Nepal of Rs. 3,72,204/- per annum in Indian currency. In view of Ex.84 and 85 which are the documents received from the income Tax Officer, Siligudi, contained the statement up to 31.3.2002 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 51,000/- thereby the deceased has total annual income (in India and from Nepal business) of Rs. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. Said documents were produced and were exhibited, there was no objection about the admissibility of the said documents and there is no evidence in rebuttal from the appellant about income of the deceased. Even in cross-examination of the claimants' evidence, nothing has come out which casts any doubt on the said documents. Therefore, so far as the assessment of the annual income of the deceased is concerned, here is no illegality committed by the tribunal. The tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and assessed the loss to the claimants only Rs. 2,82,136/- per annum. The tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only in case where the deceased was of the age of 25 years. The tribunal has not committed any illegality in applying multiplier of 17 in the facts of this case. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. In view of the above trustworthy evidence, the tribunal has calculated the loss which is just and reasonable only. Total sum arrived at on the basis of trustworthy evidence, then it cannot be challenged only by pointing out towards the figure and by saying that amount is huge. Allowing lesser amount to the claimants than for which they are entitled will be arbitrary and will be unjust. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the quantum as unjust by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that compensation must be just and should not be awarded arbitrarily. Applying same principle, it can be held that deduction also cannot be made arbitrarily and compensation cannot be reduced arbitrarily merely be saying the total sum calculated runs millions of rupees. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had no answer to argument of the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the tribunal has no taken into account the further prospects of the earning of the deceased Rakesh Kumar while assessing loss to the claimants. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction from the income of the deceased on account of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his total annual assessed income because the deceased has his business at two places; one in Nepal and another in India. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. It is also submitted that normal practice of deduction of 173rd amount of total income from the total annual income cannot be applied in the facts of this case. It is true that the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for keeping his business and residence at two places and for travelling in between two places but even if the said deduction is increased from the total income of the deceased, it will not affect the total amount awarded to the claimants, rather as held above, if the further prospects of earning of the deceased is counted to determine the compensation amount, the compensation amount would rise more than the amount which would be after deducting more than 1/3rd of the amount of the annual assessed income of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts of this case, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal in this claim case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. So far as Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002 are concerned, both have been filed by mother and wife of deceased Mangi Lal. Their cases are also similar to the Claim Case No. 60/2002. It is true that one of the claimants Smt. Geeta Devi is the mother of the deceased Mangi Lal and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Kanta. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a case where claimants are mother and father, the amount can be awarded by applying multiplier on the basis of the age of mother and father of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. I considered the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled law that there cannot be a water type jacket formula for determining compensation for the claimants, therefore, the courts have evolved a mode of calculation of the compensation which may be awarded to the claimants in the cases of death of any person in the accident. The determination of compensation and award to the claimants have two facets. One is the actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of a person in a accident and another is the amount for which claimant/claimants is/are entitled. It is just and proper for the tribunal to first determine the loss which has been caused due to death of victims in the accident irrespective of entitlement of the claimants. The amount for which the claimants are entitled cannot affect actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of victim in the accident. The claimant, if are entitled for the total amount of determined pecuniary loss as determined above, the same may be awarded to the claimant. Even in case where there is only one claimant, it is not always necessary that he shall be entitled for the total assessed loss. One of such case is where the claimants are the parents. The claimants are entitled for reimbursement of loss to the extent to which they suffered only. In the cases where the claimants are parents or persons of the age more than that of the victim then their loss is only to the extent which they would have got in their life time from the victim in case he would not have died. The said claimants are not entitled to the amount which they would not have got during their life time. Therefore, after determination of annual pecuniary loss caused due to the death of the victim in accident, the multiplier, looking to the age of the claimant, may be applied which would be the sufficient compensation amount for the claimant. In a case where parents themselves are of young age ten they may get the compensation to the extent of total loss assessed by applying multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased. This depends upon facts of each case. The matter can be examined from a different angle. In accident claim case where some one died, there may be one claimant, he may get the entire amount of the loss assessed but in case where there are more claimants, one's claim stands reduced as the claim amount is required to be distributed among all the claimants, therefore, the claimants' entitlement of the claim is different then the amount of the loss assessed. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot have any say how the claim amount should be apportioned between the claimants. The tribunal is required to pass the award specifying the separate amount which each claimant is entitled and for that purpose again the age of the parents is relevant factor while determining the claim amount for the parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Here in there cases, admittedly, in Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002, the claimants are wife and two minor sons of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for the total amount as awarded by the tribunal. Whereas, in the Claim Case No. 55/2002, the claimants are children of the deceased Smt. Mohini Devi, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the total amount awarded by the tribunal. In this case, the tribunal assessed income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the lady of the age of 65 years and applied multiplier of five only. Therefore, no fault can be fond out from the reasons given in the award passed in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 55/2002. In Claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years. The deceased was income tax assessee and his income, as per the income tax assessment, was Rs. 36.105/- per annum and multiplier of only 8 was applied. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the award by the tribunal in Claim Case No. 56/2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. in view of the above reasons, I do not find any force in these appeals and hence the appeals of the appellant are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'III(2004)ACC355; 2006ACJ292; RLW2004(4)Raj2279; 2004(3)WLC489',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ravi Kant and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759097'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Prakash Tatia',
			(int) 1 => 'Sapala',
			(int) 2 => 'Rawat',
			(int) 3 => 'Susheela',
			(int) 4 => 'Murari',
			(int) 5 => 'Nakoda',
			(int) 6 => 'Ithari',
			(int) 7 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 8 => 'Ex.84',
			(int) 9 => 'India',
			(int) 10 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 11 => 'Nepal',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => '54/2002',
			(int) 14 => '54/2002'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian',
			(int) 2 => 'Indian'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellant Insurance',
			(int) 1 => 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Jeep',
			(int) 3 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 4 => 'Tilok Chand',
			(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'another Ramesh @ Kalu',
			(int) 7 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 8 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 9 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
			(int) 10 => 'Tilok Chand',
			(int) 11 => 'Tilok Chand.(vii',
			(int) 12 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 13 => 'The Insurance Company',
			(int) 14 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 18 => 'U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors',
			(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman',
			(int) 22 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 23 => 'the Income Tax Authorities',
			(int) 24 => 'the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 25 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 27 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 28 => 'the Andhra Pradesh High Court',
			(int) 29 => 'High Court',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 32 => 'Delhi High Court',
			(int) 33 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Hindustan Zinc Limited',
			(int) 36 => 'Ors',
			(int) 37 => 'Court',
			(int) 38 => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 41 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 42 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 43 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 44 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 45 => 'Insurance Company',
			(int) 46 => 'Siligudi',
			(int) 47 => 'Rakesh Hardware',
			(int) 48 => 'Nepaii',
			(int) 49 => 'Nepal of Rs',
			(int) 50 => 'Siligudi',
			(int) 51 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => '173rd',
			(int) 54 => 'Court',
			(int) 55 => 'Smt',
			(int) 56 => 'Smt',
			(int) 57 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 58 => 'Smt'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'five',
			(int) 1 => 'five',
			(int) 2 => 'nine',
			(int) 3 => '11.07.2003.2',
			(int) 4 => 'seven',
			(int) 5 => 'One',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '53/2002).by',
			(int) 8 => '28.6.2002',
			(int) 9 => '196/2002',
			(int) 10 => '279',
			(int) 11 => '337',
			(int) 12 => '338',
			(int) 13 => '41,72,000/-',
			(int) 14 => '55/2002',
			(int) 15 => '13,50,000/-',
			(int) 16 => '22,50,000/-',
			(int) 17 => '57/2002',
			(int) 18 => '55,90,000/-',
			(int) 19 => '58/2002',
			(int) 20 => 'four',
			(int) 21 => '60/2002',
			(int) 22 => 'two',
			(int) 23 => '61/2002',
			(int) 24 => '28.6.2002.(ix',
			(int) 25 => '6,32,560/-.3',
			(int) 26 => '6,24,194/-(ii',
			(int) 27 => '3,09,340/-(v',
			(int) 28 => '1,58,500/-(vi',
			(int) 29 => '1,78,435/-(vii',
			(int) 30 => '2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------4',
			(int) 31 => 'five',
			(int) 32 => '53/02',
			(int) 33 => '54/02',
			(int) 34 => '55/02',
			(int) 35 => '56/02',
			(int) 36 => '60/02',
			(int) 37 => '1',
			(int) 38 => '2',
			(int) 39 => '3',
			(int) 40 => '36,000/-',
			(int) 41 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 42 => '5-10',
			(int) 43 => '24,000/-',
			(int) 44 => '15',
			(int) 45 => '4).7',
			(int) 46 => 'one',
			(int) 47 => 'two',
			(int) 48 => 'only 17',
			(int) 49 => '54/2002',
			(int) 50 => '17',
			(int) 51 => 'only 20,000/-',
			(int) 52 => 'only 5',
			(int) 53 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 54 => '8',
			(int) 55 => '2,88,840/-',
			(int) 56 => '48,31,812/-',
			(int) 57 => '60/2002',
			(int) 58 => '5',
			(int) 59 => '48,600/-',
			(int) 60 => '6',
			(int) 61 => '8)',
			(int) 62 => '9',
			(int) 63 => '10).10',
			(int) 64 => 'four',
			(int) 65 => '9.10.2001',
			(int) 66 => '28.6.2002',
			(int) 67 => '60/2002',
			(int) 68 => 'one',
			(int) 69 => 'two',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => 'more than four',
			(int) 72 => '31.3.2002',
			(int) 73 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 74 => '17',
			(int) 75 => '17',
			(int) 76 => '5,000/-',
			(int) 77 => 'millions',
			(int) 78 => 'more than one third',
			(int) 79 => 'more than one third',
			(int) 80 => 'two',
			(int) 81 => 'one',
			(int) 82 => 'two',
			(int) 83 => 'two',
			(int) 84 => 'two',
			(int) 85 => 'two',
			(int) 86 => 'two',
			(int) 87 => 'two',
			(int) 88 => 'more than 1/3rd',
			(int) 89 => '60/2002',
			(int) 90 => 'two',
			(int) 91 => 'One',
			(int) 92 => 'One',
			(int) 93 => 'two',
			(int) 94 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 95 => 'five',
			(int) 96 => '55/2002',
			(int) 97 => 'only 8'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rajgarh',
			(int) 1 => 'Ami Lal',
			(int) 2 => 'Ami Lal',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajgarh',
			(int) 4 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 5 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 6 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 7 => 'Rawat Mal',
			(int) 8 => 'Ram Kishan',
			(int) 9 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 10 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 11 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 12 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 13 => 'Mangi Lal's',
			(int) 14 => 'Mangi Lal.(ii',
			(int) 15 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 16 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 17 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 18 => 'Mahesh Kumar',
			(int) 19 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 20 => 'Mohini Devi',
			(int) 21 => 'Ravi Kant',
			(int) 22 => 'Shashi Kant',
			(int) 23 => 'Dhapa Bai',
			(int) 24 => 'Mahaveer Prasad.(vi',
			(int) 25 => 'Gayatri Devi',
			(int) 26 => 'Ramesh Goyal',
			(int) 27 => 'Ram Kishan',
			(int) 28 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 29 => 'Anr',
			(int) 30 => 'Jasbir Kaur',
			(int) 31 => 'Trilok Chandra',
			(int) 32 => 'Anr',
			(int) 33 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 34 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 35 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 36 => 'Rukmani Devi',
			(int) 37 => 'Ahmad Bi',
			(int) 38 => 'Anr',
			(int) 39 => 'Patricia Jean Mahajan',
			(int) 40 => 'M.L. Khuteda',
			(int) 41 => 'Ramesh Singh',
			(int) 42 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 43 => 'Murari Lal',
			(int) 44 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 45 => 'Geeta Devi',
			(int) 46 => 'Mangi Lal',
			(int) 47 => 'Kanta',
			(int) 48 => 'Mohini Devi'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '28.06.2002',
			(int) 1 => '10C 1764',
			(int) 2 => '56/2002',
			(int) 3 => 'a period of',
			(int) 4 => 'two months',
			(int) 5 => '1988',
			(int) 6 => '1988',
			(int) 7 => 'these five',
			(int) 8 => 'annual',
			(int) 9 => '34-59 years',
			(int) 10 => '62-72 years',
			(int) 11 => 'the age of',
			(int) 12 => '10-15 years',
			(int) 13 => 'annual',
			(int) 14 => 'the age of 58 years',
			(int) 15 => 'the age of 32 years',
			(int) 16 => 'age of 32 years',
			(int) 17 => 'the age of 30 years',
			(int) 18 => '55/2002',
			(int) 19 => '56/2002',
			(int) 20 => 'the age of 50 years',
			(int) 21 => ''12',
			(int) 22 => 'the age of 25 years',
			(int) 23 => 'monthly',
			(int) 24 => '89',
			(int) 25 => '85',
			(int) 26 => 'annual',
			(int) 27 => 'annual',
			(int) 28 => 'annual',
			(int) 29 => 'the age of 25 years',
			(int) 30 => 'annual',
			(int) 31 => 'annual',
			(int) 32 => 'annual',
			(int) 33 => 'age ten',
			(int) 34 => '55/2002',
			(int) 35 => 'the age of 65 years',
			(int) 36 => '56/2002',
			(int) 37 => 'the age of 50 years'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Delhi-Bikaner Road'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4.00 p.m.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '304A',
			(int) 1 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 2 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 3 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 4 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 7 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 8 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
			(int) 9 => 'Rakesh Kumar'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Claim Petition No',
			(int) 1 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 2 => 'Lata Wadhwa and Ors',
			(int) 3 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 4 => 'Lata Wadhwa',
			(int) 5 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 6 => 'Prakash and Ors',
			(int) 7 => 'Devi and Ors',
			(int) 8 => 'Claim Case',
			(int) 9 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 10 => 'Claim Cases No',
			(int) 11 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 12 => 'Claim Case No',
			(int) 13 => 'Claim Case No. 56/2002.17'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9%',
			(int) 1 => '12%'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ex.76'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759097',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 149 and 170',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 852 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No.                         Claim Case No.             Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (i)                            53/2002                 Rs. 6,24,194/-
 (ii)                           54/2002                 Rs. 8,27,900/-
 (iii)                          55/2002                 Rs. 1,70,500/-
 (iv)                           56/2002                 Rs. 3,09,340/-
 (v)                            57/2002                 Rs. 1,58,500/-
 (vi)                           58/2002                 Rs. 1,78,435/-
 (vii)                          60/2002                 Rs. 48,31,812/-
(viii)                          61/2002                 Rs.    66,324/-
 (ix)                           08/2002                 Rs.  2,46.709/-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
',
			'counselplain' => ' Jagdish Vyas, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Arun Bhansali, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-05-10',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Prakash Tatia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Prakash Tatia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 10C 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh @ Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Delhi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and challan was filed against the said Murari Lal under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 338, I.P.C. The claims were:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The Claim Petition No. 53/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Ors. claiming compensation of Rs. 41,72,000/- on account of death of Mangi Lal. The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) The Claim Petition No. 54/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Others due to death of Smt. Kanta w/o of deceased Mangi Lal. In this claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 54,38,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) In Claim Petition No. 55/2002 claimants Mahesh Kumar and Others claimed compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- on account of death of Mohini Devi. Mohini Devi was mother of the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) In Claim Petition No. 56/2002, Ravi Kant and Shashi Kant claimed compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of death of their father Rawat Mal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(v) In Claim Petition No. 57/2002, the claimants Dhapa Bai w/o Mahaveer Prasad and sons of Mahaveer Prasad claimed compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- on account of death of death of Mahaveer Prasad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vi) In Claim Petition No. 58/2002, claimants Gayatri Devi and four sons of deceased Tilok Chand claimed compensation of Rs. 17,38.000/- on account of death of Tilok Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vii) In Claim Petition No. 60/2002, Smt. Mamta w/o of deceased Rakesh Kumar and two minor sons of the deceased Rakesh Kumar and mother of, Rakesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 4,66,70,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(viii) In Claim Petition No. 61/2002, claimant Ramesh Goyal claimed compensation of Rs. 3,61,288/- as he suffered injuries in the said accident dated 28.6.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ix) In Claim Petition No. 8/2003, the injured Ram Kishan claimed compensation of Rs. 6,32,560/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation as mentioned below:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Claim Case No. Amount-----------------------------------------------------------------------(i) 53/2002 Rs. 6,24,194/-(ii) 54/2002 Rs. 8,27,900/-(iii) 55/2002 Rs. 1,70,500/-(iv) 56/2002 Rs. 3,09,340/-(v) 57/2002 Rs. 1,58,500/-(vi) 58/2002 Rs. 1,78,435/-(vii) 60/2002 Rs. 48,31,812/-(viii) 61/2002 Rs. 66,324/-(ix) 08/2002 Rs. 2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum in case the amount is deposited by the non-applicant including the appellant within a period of two months from the date of award and, in default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant has challenged the five awards passed in Claim Cases No. 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02 and 60/02 only on other grounds also, other than the grounds which are available to the appellant under Section 149 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as the appellants were granted permission to contest the claim petitions on merit by the tribunal under Section 170 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jeep involved in the accident was registered and insured for the private use only whereas the same was used for carrying the passengers for higher and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company also challenged the quantum of compensation which has been awarded in these five appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Though the ground was taken by the appellant against the award on account of vehicle being registered as private vehicle but was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward but in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the compensation amount awarded to the claimants on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in the case of claim of compensation when death is caused in the accident, compensation can be awarded only which is just compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. (1), held that just compensation means and implies fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness and according to the leaned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in all these cases cannot be said to be just compensation. The ground for saying 'not just compensation' will be dealt with in the subsequent paras when the individual case will be considered, the learned counsel for the appellant also relief upon earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (2), The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (3), wherein on account of death of house wife in accident, the annual contribution of the housewife was assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum for the age group of 34-59 years and Rs. 20,000/- for the age group of 62-72 years and in the case of death of children of 5-10, the just compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,00,000/- and where children of the age of 10-15 years died, the annual contribution of the said deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Anr. (4).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The learned counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that the present is the gravest of the grave case where was many as seven persons belonging to one family and relations died. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the mother and father of two minor children died in the accident in the young age and even the mother of the deceased is of the age of 58 years only, therefore, award of compensation of Rs. 6,24,000/- and odd in the Claim Case No. 53/2002 and award of compensation of Rs. 8,27,000/- in the Claim Case No. 54/2002 cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust. It is also submitted that the deceased Mangi Lal was of the age of 32 years only. His income has been proved by trustworthy documentary evidence of income tax return. There was no reason for any deduction from the income of the deceased which has been shown in the even return as the actual income may be much more higher than the income shown in the return because even as per the law, the assessee is entitled for certain benefits of tax deductions. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, in case of death of young person of age of 32 years, the tribunal applied multiplier of only 17. It is also submitted that in Claim case No. 54/2002, the tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only even when the deceased Kanta was of the age of 30 years only. The income of the deceased Kanta was assessed on the basis of the certificate of Income Ex.99. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, in Claim Case No. 55/2002, the total compensation awarded to the claimants was on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and in this case, loss to the claimant was assessed only 20,000/- per annum and the multiplier of only 5 was applied. In the claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years only. He was doing the business and his income was assessed by the Income Tax Authorities. The tribunal relied upon the income shown in the income tax return and thereafter deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and applied multiplier of 8 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,88,840/- on account of loss of income to the claimants. In reply to the serious objection about award of compensation of Rs. 48,31,812/- in Claim Case No. 60/2002, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently submitted that the just compensation is the compensation for which the claimants are entitled in accordance with law and the tribunal and the courts cannot be swayed by the large amount of compensation only. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. It is also submitted that even in appeal, there appears to be no ground to justify the argument of the appellant by which the appellant wants to challenge the quantum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal in all the cases is, in fact, on the lowest possible side because in all the case, the tribunal did not add any amount while determining the compensation after taking into consideration the future prospects of increase in income of the deceased persons. Therefore, even if any case is made out for interference in the impugned award then it is the case where compensation amount can be increased only. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also submitted that despite permission to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-Insurance Company could not produce any evidence in rebuttal so far as the claim amount is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants relied upon the various judgment; Rukmani Devi and Ors. v. Om Prakash and Ors. (5). In that case, the deceased was doing the business in partnership which was continued by the family members after his death, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was reduced by the High Court in appeal to Rs. 48,600/- but Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Susheela and Ors. v. Ahmad Bi and Ors. (6), wherein High Court even refused to deduct any amount from the income of the deceased on account of his income tax liability or professional tax liability. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, when further prospects of earning was not taken into account, this Court (by me) interfered in the award of the tribunal and the claim amount was enhanced in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sajni Devi and Ors. (7). It is also submitted that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (8), held that income tax return of the deceased is admissible in evidence without any further proof and held assessment of compensation on the basis of income tax return as a valid basis for assessment of the income of the deceased and loss to the claimants. It is also submitted that this Court (by me) in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M.L. Khuteda and Ors. (9), enhanced the compensation amount when the claimant was even father of the deceased. It is also submitted that when claimants are major, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimants as held by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors. (10).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the accident is concerned, it cannot be disputed, there is no dispute that respondent Murari Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, in view of the evidence produced by the claimants, the claimants fully established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Murari Lal. The appellant has not challenged this Finding in four claim cases which have been decided against the appellant and this Court also do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal holding driver Murari lal guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and causing the accident. The tribunal rightly held that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period from 9.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 and the accident occurred during this period on 28.6.2002. the tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant Insurance Company that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation because the deceased and the injured were near relatives of the owner of the vehicle, therefore, they cannot be treated as third party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, only question survives for determination in these appeals is with respect to the challenge to the quantum awarded in various cases. Before consideringany other evidence, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant produced their witness NAW-1 Mool Chand Surana only who admitted that the vehicle wasinsured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant-Insurance Company is liableto pay the compensation amount provided it is proved that the vehicle was insured and it was driven by the driver with valid driving licence, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable, therefore, so far as rebuttal to the evidence of the claimants relating to the accident, death and injuries to the persons mentioned above and claimof quantum as claimed by the claimants is not there at all from the side of appellant Insurance Company.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It will be just and appropriate to take Claim Case No. 60/2002 wherein compensation of total Rs. 48,31,812/- has been awarded to the claimants. In this claim case, one Rakesh Kumar, who was of the age of 25 years only and was doing the business in the name of Nakoda novelties at Siligudi and in the name of Rakesh Hardware at Ithari, Nepal. From the business at two places, the deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting monthly income of Rs. 67,000/-. It is submitted that in due course of time, the income of the deceased Rakesh Kumar would have increased to at least Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. At the time of unfortunate death in the accident, Rakesh Kumar left behind two sons and his widow. The claimants produced documentary evidence of the income of the deceased as Ex.76 and Ex.91A. On the basis of above, the claimants claimed compensation of more than four crores rupees. As per Ex.88A and 89, deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting income of Rs. 5,90,000/- which was converted into Indian rupees from the Nepaii currency and the tribunal held that the deceased had income from business at Nepal of Rs. 3,72,204/- per annum in Indian currency. In view of Ex.84 and 85 which are the documents received from the income Tax Officer, Siligudi, contained the statement up to 31.3.2002 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 51,000/- thereby the deceased has total annual income (in India and from Nepal business) of Rs. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. Said documents were produced and were exhibited, there was no objection about the admissibility of the said documents and there is no evidence in rebuttal from the appellant about income of the deceased. Even in cross-examination of the claimants' evidence, nothing has come out which casts any doubt on the said documents. Therefore, so far as the assessment of the annual income of the deceased is concerned, here is no illegality committed by the tribunal. The tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and assessed the loss to the claimants only Rs. 2,82,136/- per annum. The tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only in case where the deceased was of the age of 25 years. The tribunal has not committed any illegality in applying multiplier of 17 in the facts of this case. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. In view of the above trustworthy evidence, the tribunal has calculated the loss which is just and reasonable only. Total sum arrived at on the basis of trustworthy evidence, then it cannot be challenged only by pointing out towards the figure and by saying that amount is huge. Allowing lesser amount to the claimants than for which they are entitled will be arbitrary and will be unjust. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the quantum as unjust by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that compensation must be just and should not be awarded arbitrarily. Applying same principle, it can be held that deduction also cannot be made arbitrarily and compensation cannot be reduced arbitrarily merely be saying the total sum calculated runs millions of rupees. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had no answer to argument of the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the tribunal has no taken into account the further prospects of the earning of the deceased Rakesh Kumar while assessing loss to the claimants. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction from the income of the deceased on account of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his total annual assessed income because the deceased has his business at two places; one in Nepal and another in India. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. It is also submitted that normal practice of deduction of 173rd amount of total income from the total annual income cannot be applied in the facts of this case. It is true that the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for keeping his business and residence at two places and for travelling in between two places but even if the said deduction is increased from the total income of the deceased, it will not affect the total amount awarded to the claimants, rather as held above, if the further prospects of earning of the deceased is counted to determine the compensation amount, the compensation amount would rise more than the amount which would be after deducting more than 1/3rd of the amount of the annual assessed income of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts of this case, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal in this claim case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. So far as Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002 are concerned, both have been filed by mother and wife of deceased Mangi Lal. Their cases are also similar to the Claim Case No. 60/2002. It is true that one of the claimants Smt. Geeta Devi is the mother of the deceased Mangi Lal and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Kanta. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a case where claimants are mother and father, the amount can be awarded by applying multiplier on the basis of the age of mother and father of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. I considered the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled law that there cannot be a water type jacket formula for determining compensation for the claimants, therefore, the courts have evolved a mode of calculation of the compensation which may be awarded to the claimants in the cases of death of any person in the accident. The determination of compensation and award to the claimants have two facets. One is the actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of a person in a accident and another is the amount for which claimant/claimants is/are entitled. It is just and proper for the tribunal to first determine the loss which has been caused due to death of victims in the accident irrespective of entitlement of the claimants. The amount for which the claimants are entitled cannot affect actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of victim in the accident. The claimant, if are entitled for the total amount of determined pecuniary loss as determined above, the same may be awarded to the claimant. Even in case where there is only one claimant, it is not always necessary that he shall be entitled for the total assessed loss. One of such case is where the claimants are the parents. The claimants are entitled for reimbursement of loss to the extent to which they suffered only. In the cases where the claimants are parents or persons of the age more than that of the victim then their loss is only to the extent which they would have got in their life time from the victim in case he would not have died. The said claimants are not entitled to the amount which they would not have got during their life time. Therefore, after determination of annual pecuniary loss caused due to the death of the victim in accident, the multiplier, looking to the age of the claimant, may be applied which would be the sufficient compensation amount for the claimant. In a case where parents themselves are of young age ten they may get the compensation to the extent of total loss assessed by applying multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased. This depends upon facts of each case. The matter can be examined from a different angle. In accident claim case where some one died, there may be one claimant, he may get the entire amount of the loss assessed but in case where there are more claimants, one's claim stands reduced as the claim amount is required to be distributed among all the claimants, therefore, the claimants' entitlement of the claim is different then the amount of the loss assessed. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot have any say how the claim amount should be apportioned between the claimants. The tribunal is required to pass the award specifying the separate amount which each claimant is entitled and for that purpose again the age of the parents is relevant factor while determining the claim amount for the parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Here in there cases, admittedly, in Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002, the claimants are wife and two minor sons of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for the total amount as awarded by the tribunal. Whereas, in the Claim Case No. 55/2002, the claimants are children of the deceased Smt. Mohini Devi, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the total amount awarded by the tribunal. In this case, the tribunal assessed income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the lady of the age of 65 years and applied multiplier of five only. Therefore, no fault can be fond out from the reasons given in the award passed in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 55/2002. In Claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years. The deceased was income tax assessee and his income, as per the income tax assessment, was Rs. 36.105/- per annum and multiplier of only 8 was applied. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the award by the tribunal in Claim Case No. 56/2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. in view of the above reasons, I do not find any force in these appeals and hence the appeals of the appellant are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'III(2004)ACC355; 2006ACJ292; RLW2004(4)Raj2279; 2004(3)WLC489',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ravi Kant and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759097'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Prakash Tatia',
		(int) 1 => 'Sapala',
		(int) 2 => 'Rawat',
		(int) 3 => 'Susheela',
		(int) 4 => 'Murari',
		(int) 5 => 'Nakoda',
		(int) 6 => 'Ithari',
		(int) 7 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 8 => 'Ex.84',
		(int) 9 => 'India',
		(int) 10 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 11 => 'Nepal',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => '54/2002',
		(int) 14 => '54/2002'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian',
		(int) 2 => 'Indian'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellant Insurance',
		(int) 1 => 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Jeep',
		(int) 3 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 4 => 'Tilok Chand',
		(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'another Ramesh @ Kalu',
		(int) 7 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 8 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 9 => 'Mahaveer Prasad',
		(int) 10 => 'Tilok Chand',
		(int) 11 => 'Tilok Chand.(vii',
		(int) 12 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 13 => 'The Insurance Company',
		(int) 14 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 18 => 'U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors',
		(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman',
		(int) 22 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 23 => 'the Income Tax Authorities',
		(int) 24 => 'the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 25 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 27 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 28 => 'the Andhra Pradesh High Court',
		(int) 29 => 'High Court',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 32 => 'Delhi High Court',
		(int) 33 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Hindustan Zinc Limited',
		(int) 36 => 'Ors',
		(int) 37 => 'Court',
		(int) 38 => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 41 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 42 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 43 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 44 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 45 => 'Insurance Company',
		(int) 46 => 'Siligudi',
		(int) 47 => 'Rakesh Hardware',
		(int) 48 => 'Nepaii',
		(int) 49 => 'Nepal of Rs',
		(int) 50 => 'Siligudi',
		(int) 51 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => '173rd',
		(int) 54 => 'Court',
		(int) 55 => 'Smt',
		(int) 56 => 'Smt',
		(int) 57 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 58 => 'Smt'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'five',
		(int) 1 => 'five',
		(int) 2 => 'nine',
		(int) 3 => '11.07.2003.2',
		(int) 4 => 'seven',
		(int) 5 => 'One',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '53/2002).by',
		(int) 8 => '28.6.2002',
		(int) 9 => '196/2002',
		(int) 10 => '279',
		(int) 11 => '337',
		(int) 12 => '338',
		(int) 13 => '41,72,000/-',
		(int) 14 => '55/2002',
		(int) 15 => '13,50,000/-',
		(int) 16 => '22,50,000/-',
		(int) 17 => '57/2002',
		(int) 18 => '55,90,000/-',
		(int) 19 => '58/2002',
		(int) 20 => 'four',
		(int) 21 => '60/2002',
		(int) 22 => 'two',
		(int) 23 => '61/2002',
		(int) 24 => '28.6.2002.(ix',
		(int) 25 => '6,32,560/-.3',
		(int) 26 => '6,24,194/-(ii',
		(int) 27 => '3,09,340/-(v',
		(int) 28 => '1,58,500/-(vi',
		(int) 29 => '1,78,435/-(vii',
		(int) 30 => '2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------4',
		(int) 31 => 'five',
		(int) 32 => '53/02',
		(int) 33 => '54/02',
		(int) 34 => '55/02',
		(int) 35 => '56/02',
		(int) 36 => '60/02',
		(int) 37 => '1',
		(int) 38 => '2',
		(int) 39 => '3',
		(int) 40 => '36,000/-',
		(int) 41 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 42 => '5-10',
		(int) 43 => '24,000/-',
		(int) 44 => '15',
		(int) 45 => '4).7',
		(int) 46 => 'one',
		(int) 47 => 'two',
		(int) 48 => 'only 17',
		(int) 49 => '54/2002',
		(int) 50 => '17',
		(int) 51 => 'only 20,000/-',
		(int) 52 => 'only 5',
		(int) 53 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 54 => '8',
		(int) 55 => '2,88,840/-',
		(int) 56 => '48,31,812/-',
		(int) 57 => '60/2002',
		(int) 58 => '5',
		(int) 59 => '48,600/-',
		(int) 60 => '6',
		(int) 61 => '8)',
		(int) 62 => '9',
		(int) 63 => '10).10',
		(int) 64 => 'four',
		(int) 65 => '9.10.2001',
		(int) 66 => '28.6.2002',
		(int) 67 => '60/2002',
		(int) 68 => 'one',
		(int) 69 => 'two',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => 'more than four',
		(int) 72 => '31.3.2002',
		(int) 73 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 74 => '17',
		(int) 75 => '17',
		(int) 76 => '5,000/-',
		(int) 77 => 'millions',
		(int) 78 => 'more than one third',
		(int) 79 => 'more than one third',
		(int) 80 => 'two',
		(int) 81 => 'one',
		(int) 82 => 'two',
		(int) 83 => 'two',
		(int) 84 => 'two',
		(int) 85 => 'two',
		(int) 86 => 'two',
		(int) 87 => 'two',
		(int) 88 => 'more than 1/3rd',
		(int) 89 => '60/2002',
		(int) 90 => 'two',
		(int) 91 => 'One',
		(int) 92 => 'One',
		(int) 93 => 'two',
		(int) 94 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 95 => 'five',
		(int) 96 => '55/2002',
		(int) 97 => 'only 8'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rajgarh',
		(int) 1 => 'Ami Lal',
		(int) 2 => 'Ami Lal',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajgarh',
		(int) 4 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 5 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 6 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 7 => 'Rawat Mal',
		(int) 8 => 'Ram Kishan',
		(int) 9 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 10 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 11 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 12 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 13 => 'Mangi Lal's',
		(int) 14 => 'Mangi Lal.(ii',
		(int) 15 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 16 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 17 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 18 => 'Mahesh Kumar',
		(int) 19 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 20 => 'Mohini Devi',
		(int) 21 => 'Ravi Kant',
		(int) 22 => 'Shashi Kant',
		(int) 23 => 'Dhapa Bai',
		(int) 24 => 'Mahaveer Prasad.(vi',
		(int) 25 => 'Gayatri Devi',
		(int) 26 => 'Ramesh Goyal',
		(int) 27 => 'Ram Kishan',
		(int) 28 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 29 => 'Anr',
		(int) 30 => 'Jasbir Kaur',
		(int) 31 => 'Trilok Chandra',
		(int) 32 => 'Anr',
		(int) 33 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 34 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 35 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 36 => 'Rukmani Devi',
		(int) 37 => 'Ahmad Bi',
		(int) 38 => 'Anr',
		(int) 39 => 'Patricia Jean Mahajan',
		(int) 40 => 'M.L. Khuteda',
		(int) 41 => 'Ramesh Singh',
		(int) 42 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 43 => 'Murari Lal',
		(int) 44 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 45 => 'Geeta Devi',
		(int) 46 => 'Mangi Lal',
		(int) 47 => 'Kanta',
		(int) 48 => 'Mohini Devi'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '28.06.2002',
		(int) 1 => '10C 1764',
		(int) 2 => '56/2002',
		(int) 3 => 'a period of',
		(int) 4 => 'two months',
		(int) 5 => '1988',
		(int) 6 => '1988',
		(int) 7 => 'these five',
		(int) 8 => 'annual',
		(int) 9 => '34-59 years',
		(int) 10 => '62-72 years',
		(int) 11 => 'the age of',
		(int) 12 => '10-15 years',
		(int) 13 => 'annual',
		(int) 14 => 'the age of 58 years',
		(int) 15 => 'the age of 32 years',
		(int) 16 => 'age of 32 years',
		(int) 17 => 'the age of 30 years',
		(int) 18 => '55/2002',
		(int) 19 => '56/2002',
		(int) 20 => 'the age of 50 years',
		(int) 21 => ''12',
		(int) 22 => 'the age of 25 years',
		(int) 23 => 'monthly',
		(int) 24 => '89',
		(int) 25 => '85',
		(int) 26 => 'annual',
		(int) 27 => 'annual',
		(int) 28 => 'annual',
		(int) 29 => 'the age of 25 years',
		(int) 30 => 'annual',
		(int) 31 => 'annual',
		(int) 32 => 'annual',
		(int) 33 => 'age ten',
		(int) 34 => '55/2002',
		(int) 35 => 'the age of 65 years',
		(int) 36 => '56/2002',
		(int) 37 => 'the age of 50 years'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Delhi-Bikaner Road'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4.00 p.m.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '304A',
		(int) 1 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 2 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 3 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 4 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 5 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 7 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 8 => 'Rakesh Kumar',
		(int) 9 => 'Rakesh Kumar'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Claim Petition No',
		(int) 1 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 2 => 'Lata Wadhwa and Ors',
		(int) 3 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 4 => 'Lata Wadhwa',
		(int) 5 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 6 => 'Prakash and Ors',
		(int) 7 => 'Devi and Ors',
		(int) 8 => 'Claim Case',
		(int) 9 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 10 => 'Claim Cases No',
		(int) 11 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 12 => 'Claim Case No',
		(int) 13 => 'Claim Case No. 56/2002.17'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9%',
		(int) 1 => '12%'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ex.76'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759097',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 149 and 170',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 852 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No.                         Claim Case No.             Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (i)                            53/2002                 Rs. 6,24,194/-
 (ii)                           54/2002                 Rs. 8,27,900/-
 (iii)                          55/2002                 Rs. 1,70,500/-
 (iv)                           56/2002                 Rs. 3,09,340/-
 (v)                            57/2002                 Rs. 1,58,500/-
 (vi)                           58/2002                 Rs. 1,78,435/-
 (vii)                          60/2002                 Rs. 48,31,812/-
(viii)                          61/2002                 Rs.    66,324/-
 (ix)                           08/2002                 Rs.  2,46.709/-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
',
		'counselplain' => ' Jagdish Vyas, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Arun Bhansali, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-05-10',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Prakash Tatia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Prakash Tatia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 10C 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh @ Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Delhi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and challan was filed against the said Murari Lal under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 338, I.P.C. The claims were:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The Claim Petition No. 53/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Ors. claiming compensation of Rs. 41,72,000/- on account of death of Mangi Lal. The claimants are Mangi Lal's son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) The Claim Petition No. 54/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Others due to death of Smt. Kanta w/o of deceased Mangi Lal. In this claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 54,38,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) In Claim Petition No. 55/2002 claimants Mahesh Kumar and Others claimed compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- on account of death of Mohini Devi. Mohini Devi was mother of the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) In Claim Petition No. 56/2002, Ravi Kant and Shashi Kant claimed compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of death of their father Rawat Mal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(v) In Claim Petition No. 57/2002, the claimants Dhapa Bai w/o Mahaveer Prasad and sons of Mahaveer Prasad claimed compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- on account of death of death of Mahaveer Prasad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vi) In Claim Petition No. 58/2002, claimants Gayatri Devi and four sons of deceased Tilok Chand claimed compensation of Rs. 17,38.000/- on account of death of Tilok Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(vii) In Claim Petition No. 60/2002, Smt. Mamta w/o of deceased Rakesh Kumar and two minor sons of the deceased Rakesh Kumar and mother of, Rakesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 4,66,70,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(viii) In Claim Petition No. 61/2002, claimant Ramesh Goyal claimed compensation of Rs. 3,61,288/- as he suffered injuries in the said accident dated 28.6.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ix) In Claim Petition No. 8/2003, the injured Ram Kishan claimed compensation of Rs. 6,32,560/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation as mentioned below:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Claim Case No. Amount-----------------------------------------------------------------------(i) 53/2002 Rs. 6,24,194/-(ii) 54/2002 Rs. 8,27,900/-(iii) 55/2002 Rs. 1,70,500/-(iv) 56/2002 Rs. 3,09,340/-(v) 57/2002 Rs. 1,58,500/-(vi) 58/2002 Rs. 1,78,435/-(vii) 60/2002 Rs. 48,31,812/-(viii) 61/2002 Rs. 66,324/-(ix) 08/2002 Rs. 2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum in case the amount is deposited by the non-applicant including the appellant within a period of two months from the date of award and, in default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The appellant has challenged the five awards passed in Claim Cases No. 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02 and 60/02 only on other grounds also, other than the grounds which are available to the appellant under Section 149 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as the appellants were granted permission to contest the claim petitions on merit by the tribunal under Section 170 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jeep involved in the accident was registered and insured for the private use only whereas the same was used for carrying the passengers for higher and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company also challenged the quantum of compensation which has been awarded in these five appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Though the ground was taken by the appellant against the award on account of vehicle being registered as private vehicle but was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward but in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the compensation amount awarded to the claimants on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in the case of claim of compensation when death is caused in the accident, compensation can be awarded only which is just compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. (1), held that just compensation means and implies fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness and according to the leaned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in all these cases cannot be said to be just compensation. The ground for saying 'not just compensation' will be dealt with in the subsequent paras when the individual case will be considered, the learned counsel for the appellant also relief upon earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (2), The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (3), wherein on account of death of house wife in accident, the annual contribution of the housewife was assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum for the age group of 34-59 years and Rs. 20,000/- for the age group of 62-72 years and in the case of death of children of 5-10, the just compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,00,000/- and where children of the age of 10-15 years died, the annual contribution of the said deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer and Anr. (4).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The learned counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that the present is the gravest of the grave case where was many as seven persons belonging to one family and relations died. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the mother and father of two minor children died in the accident in the young age and even the mother of the deceased is of the age of 58 years only, therefore, award of compensation of Rs. 6,24,000/- and odd in the Claim Case No. 53/2002 and award of compensation of Rs. 8,27,000/- in the Claim Case No. 54/2002 cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust. It is also submitted that the deceased Mangi Lal was of the age of 32 years only. His income has been proved by trustworthy documentary evidence of income tax return. There was no reason for any deduction from the income of the deceased which has been shown in the even return as the actual income may be much more higher than the income shown in the return because even as per the law, the assessee is entitled for certain benefits of tax deductions. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, in case of death of young person of age of 32 years, the tribunal applied multiplier of only 17. It is also submitted that in Claim case No. 54/2002, the tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only even when the deceased Kanta was of the age of 30 years only. The income of the deceased Kanta was assessed on the basis of the certificate of Income Ex.99. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, in Claim Case No. 55/2002, the total compensation awarded to the claimants was on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and in this case, loss to the claimant was assessed only 20,000/- per annum and the multiplier of only 5 was applied. In the claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years only. He was doing the business and his income was assessed by the Income Tax Authorities. The tribunal relied upon the income shown in the income tax return and thereafter deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and applied multiplier of 8 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,88,840/- on account of loss of income to the claimants. In reply to the serious objection about award of compensation of Rs. 48,31,812/- in Claim Case No. 60/2002, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently submitted that the just compensation is the compensation for which the claimants are entitled in accordance with law and the tribunal and the courts cannot be swayed by the large amount of compensation only. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the appellant failed to make out any case for not assessing the income on the basis of the income given in the income tax return. It is also submitted that even in appeal, there appears to be no ground to justify the argument of the appellant by which the appellant wants to challenge the quantum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal in all the cases is, in fact, on the lowest possible side because in all the case, the tribunal did not add any amount while determining the compensation after taking into consideration the future prospects of increase in income of the deceased persons. Therefore, even if any case is made out for interference in the impugned award then it is the case where compensation amount can be increased only. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also submitted that despite permission to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-Insurance Company could not produce any evidence in rebuttal so far as the claim amount is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants relied upon the various judgment; Rukmani Devi and Ors. v. Om Prakash and Ors. (5). In that case, the deceased was doing the business in partnership which was continued by the family members after his death, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was reduced by the High Court in appeal to Rs. 48,600/- but Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Susheela and Ors. v. Ahmad Bi and Ors. (6), wherein High Court even refused to deduct any amount from the income of the deceased on account of his income tax liability or professional tax liability. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, when further prospects of earning was not taken into account, this Court (by me) interfered in the award of the tribunal and the claim amount was enhanced in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sajni Devi and Ors. (7). It is also submitted that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (8), held that income tax return of the deceased is admissible in evidence without any further proof and held assessment of compensation on the basis of income tax return as a valid basis for assessment of the income of the deceased and loss to the claimants. It is also submitted that this Court (by me) in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M.L. Khuteda and Ors. (9), enhanced the compensation amount when the claimant was even father of the deceased. It is also submitted that when claimants are major, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimants as held by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Singh and Ors. (10).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the accident is concerned, it cannot be disputed, there is no dispute that respondent Murari Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, in view of the evidence produced by the claimants, the claimants fully established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Murari Lal. The appellant has not challenged this Finding in four claim cases which have been decided against the appellant and this Court also do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal holding driver Murari lal guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and causing the accident. The tribunal rightly held that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period from 9.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 and the accident occurred during this period on 28.6.2002. the tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant Insurance Company that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation because the deceased and the injured were near relatives of the owner of the vehicle, therefore, they cannot be treated as third party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, only question survives for determination in these appeals is with respect to the challenge to the quantum awarded in various cases. Before consideringany other evidence, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant produced their witness NAW-1 Mool Chand Surana only who admitted that the vehicle wasinsured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant Insurance Company. He merely stated that the appellant-Insurance Company is liableto pay the compensation amount provided it is proved that the vehicle was insured and it was driven by the driver with valid driving licence, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable, therefore, so far as rebuttal to the evidence of the claimants relating to the accident, death and injuries to the persons mentioned above and claimof quantum as claimed by the claimants is not there at all from the side of appellant Insurance Company.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It will be just and appropriate to take Claim Case No. 60/2002 wherein compensation of total Rs. 48,31,812/- has been awarded to the claimants. In this claim case, one Rakesh Kumar, who was of the age of 25 years only and was doing the business in the name of Nakoda novelties at Siligudi and in the name of Rakesh Hardware at Ithari, Nepal. From the business at two places, the deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting monthly income of Rs. 67,000/-. It is submitted that in due course of time, the income of the deceased Rakesh Kumar would have increased to at least Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. At the time of unfortunate death in the accident, Rakesh Kumar left behind two sons and his widow. The claimants produced documentary evidence of the income of the deceased as Ex.76 and Ex.91A. On the basis of above, the claimants claimed compensation of more than four crores rupees. As per Ex.88A and 89, deceased Rakesh Kumar was getting income of Rs. 5,90,000/- which was converted into Indian rupees from the Nepaii currency and the tribunal held that the deceased had income from business at Nepal of Rs. 3,72,204/- per annum in Indian currency. In view of Ex.84 and 85 which are the documents received from the income Tax Officer, Siligudi, contained the statement up to 31.3.2002 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 51,000/- thereby the deceased has total annual income (in India and from Nepal business) of Rs. 4,23,204/- The learned counsel for the appellant through challenged the quantum but failed to point out how this determination can be said to be wrong which is based on unrebutted and trustworthy documentary evidence. Said documents were produced and were exhibited, there was no objection about the admissibility of the said documents and there is no evidence in rebuttal from the appellant about income of the deceased. Even in cross-examination of the claimants' evidence, nothing has come out which casts any doubt on the said documents. Therefore, so far as the assessment of the annual income of the deceased is concerned, here is no illegality committed by the tribunal. The tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and assessed the loss to the claimants only Rs. 2,82,136/- per annum. The tribunal applied multiplier of 17 only in case where the deceased was of the age of 25 years. The tribunal has not committed any illegality in applying multiplier of 17 in the facts of this case. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar on account of loss of love and affection and consortium whereas awarded merely Rs. 5,000/- to each to the minor sons for loss of love and affection of their father. In view of the above trustworthy evidence, the tribunal has calculated the loss which is just and reasonable only. Total sum arrived at on the basis of trustworthy evidence, then it cannot be challenged only by pointing out towards the figure and by saying that amount is huge. Allowing lesser amount to the claimants than for which they are entitled will be arbitrary and will be unjust. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the quantum as unjust by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that compensation must be just and should not be awarded arbitrarily. Applying same principle, it can be held that deduction also cannot be made arbitrarily and compensation cannot be reduced arbitrarily merely be saying the total sum calculated runs millions of rupees. The appellant, therefore, failed to substantiate their argument by showing any arbitrariness in the award of the compensation. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had no answer to argument of the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the tribunal has no taken into account the further prospects of the earning of the deceased Rakesh Kumar while assessing loss to the claimants. Since the compensation awarded to the claimants is based on trustworthy documentary evidence and there is no cross- objection filed by the claimants, obviously, because of the reason that even if the further prospects of earning of the deceased was not taken into account, the compensation awarded by the tribunal satisfied the claimants, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount by considering the further prospects of the earning of the deceased in the peculiar facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction from the income of the deceased on account of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his personal needs should have been more than one third of his total annual assessed income because the deceased has his business at two places; one in Nepal and another in India. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of establishment at two places, the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for himself to maintain his business at two places as well as to reside at two places and to travel in between two places. It is also submitted that normal practice of deduction of 173rd amount of total income from the total annual income cannot be applied in the facts of this case. It is true that the deceased would have incurred more expenditure for keeping his business and residence at two places and for travelling in between two places but even if the said deduction is increased from the total income of the deceased, it will not affect the total amount awarded to the claimants, rather as held above, if the further prospects of earning of the deceased is counted to determine the compensation amount, the compensation amount would rise more than the amount which would be after deducting more than 1/3rd of the amount of the annual assessed income of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts of this case, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal in this claim case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. So far as Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002 are concerned, both have been filed by mother and wife of deceased Mangi Lal. Their cases are also similar to the Claim Case No. 60/2002. It is true that one of the claimants Smt. Geeta Devi is the mother of the deceased Mangi Lal and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Kanta. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a case where claimants are mother and father, the amount can be awarded by applying multiplier on the basis of the age of mother and father of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. I considered the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled law that there cannot be a water type jacket formula for determining compensation for the claimants, therefore, the courts have evolved a mode of calculation of the compensation which may be awarded to the claimants in the cases of death of any person in the accident. The determination of compensation and award to the claimants have two facets. One is the actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of a person in a accident and another is the amount for which claimant/claimants is/are entitled. It is just and proper for the tribunal to first determine the loss which has been caused due to death of victims in the accident irrespective of entitlement of the claimants. The amount for which the claimants are entitled cannot affect actual pecuniary loss caused due to death of victim in the accident. The claimant, if are entitled for the total amount of determined pecuniary loss as determined above, the same may be awarded to the claimant. Even in case where there is only one claimant, it is not always necessary that he shall be entitled for the total assessed loss. One of such case is where the claimants are the parents. The claimants are entitled for reimbursement of loss to the extent to which they suffered only. In the cases where the claimants are parents or persons of the age more than that of the victim then their loss is only to the extent which they would have got in their life time from the victim in case he would not have died. The said claimants are not entitled to the amount which they would not have got during their life time. Therefore, after determination of annual pecuniary loss caused due to the death of the victim in accident, the multiplier, looking to the age of the claimant, may be applied which would be the sufficient compensation amount for the claimant. In a case where parents themselves are of young age ten they may get the compensation to the extent of total loss assessed by applying multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased. This depends upon facts of each case. The matter can be examined from a different angle. In accident claim case where some one died, there may be one claimant, he may get the entire amount of the loss assessed but in case where there are more claimants, one's claim stands reduced as the claim amount is required to be distributed among all the claimants, therefore, the claimants' entitlement of the claim is different then the amount of the loss assessed. In the cases where claimants are parents as well as the descendants and the wife, then the claimants jointly shall be entitled for the total amount of the loss which has been assessed by following the method referred above. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot have any say how the claim amount should be apportioned between the claimants. The tribunal is required to pass the award specifying the separate amount which each claimant is entitled and for that purpose again the age of the parents is relevant factor while determining the claim amount for the parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Here in there cases, admittedly, in Claim Cases No. 53/2002 and 54/2002, the claimants are wife and two minor sons of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for the total amount as awarded by the tribunal. Whereas, in the Claim Case No. 55/2002, the claimants are children of the deceased Smt. Mohini Devi, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the total amount awarded by the tribunal. In this case, the tribunal assessed income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the lady of the age of 65 years and applied multiplier of five only. Therefore, no fault can be fond out from the reasons given in the award passed in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 55/2002. In Claim Case No. 56/2002, the deceased was of the age of 50 years. The deceased was income tax assessee and his income, as per the income tax assessment, was Rs. 36.105/- per annum and multiplier of only 8 was applied. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the award by the tribunal in Claim Case No. 56/2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. in view of the above reasons, I do not find any force in these appeals and hence the appeals of the appellant are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'III(2004)ACC355; 2006ACJ292; RLW2004(4)Raj2279; 2004(3)WLC489',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ravi Kant and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759097'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act

GPE: Prakash Tatia, Sapala, Rawat, Susheela, Murari, Nakoda, Ithari, Nepal, Ex.84, India, Nepal, Nepal, India, 54/2002, 54/2002

NORP: J.1, Indian, Indian

ORG: Appellant Insurance, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jeep, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand, Rakesh Kumar, another Ramesh @ Kalu, the Police Station, Mahaveer Prasad, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand, Tilok Chand.(vii, the Insurance Company, The Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court, State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Income Tax Authorities, the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court, the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, High Court, Court, Union of India, Delhi High Court, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Court, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Ors, Court, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Court, Insurance Company, Insurance Company, Insurance Company, Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, Insurance Company, Siligudi, Rakesh Hardware, Nepaii, Nepal of Rs, Siligudi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Court, 173rd, Court, Smt, Smt, the Insurance Company, Smt

CARDINAL: five, five, nine, 11.07.2003.2, seven, One, 3, 53/2002).by, 28.6.2002, 196/2002, 279, 337, 338, 41,72,000/-, 55/2002, 13,50,000/-, 22,50,000/-, 57/2002, 55,90,000/-, 58/2002, four, 60/2002, two, 61/2002, 28.6.2002.(ix, 6,32,560/-.3, 6,24,194/-(ii, 3,09,340/-(v, 1,58,500/-(vi, 1,78,435/-(vii, 2,46.709/-----------------------------------------------------------------------4, five, 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02, 60/02, 1, 2, 3, 36,000/-, 20,000/-, 5-10, 24,000/-, 15, 4).7, one, two, only 17, 54/2002, 17, only 20,000/-, only 5, 1/3rd, 8, 2,88,840/-, 48,31,812/-, 60/2002, 5, 48,600/-, 6, 8), 9, 10).10, four, 9.10.2001, 28.6.2002, 60/2002, one, two, two, more than four, 31.3.2002, 1/3rd, 17, 17, 5,000/-, millions, more than one third, more than one third, two, one, two, two, two, two, two, two, more than 1/3rd, 60/2002, two, One, One, two, 20,000/-, five, 55/2002, only 8

PERSON: Rajgarh, Ami Lal, Ami Lal, Rajgarh, Mangi Lal, Kanta, Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Ram Kishan, Murari Lal, Murari Lal, Geeta Devi, Mangi Lal, Mangi Lal's, Mangi Lal.(ii, Geeta Devi, Kanta, Mangi Lal, Mahesh Kumar, Mohini Devi, Mohini Devi, Ravi Kant, Shashi Kant, Dhapa Bai, Mahaveer Prasad.(vi, Gayatri Devi, Ramesh Goyal, Ram Kishan, Haryana, Anr, Jasbir Kaur, Trilok Chandra, Anr, Mangi Lal, Kanta, Kanta, Rukmani Devi, Ahmad Bi, Anr, Patricia Jean Mahajan, M.L. Khuteda, Ramesh Singh, Murari Lal, Murari Lal, Mangi Lal, Geeta Devi, Mangi Lal, Kanta, Mohini Devi

DATE: 28.06.2002, 10C 1764, 56/2002, a period of, two months, 1988, 1988, these five, annual, 34-59 years, 62-72 years, the age of, 10-15 years, annual, the age of 58 years, the age of 32 years, age of 32 years, the age of 30 years, 55/2002, 56/2002, the age of 50 years, '12, the age of 25 years, monthly, 89, 85, annual, annual, annual, the age of 25 years, annual, annual, annual, age ten, 55/2002, the age of 65 years, 56/2002, the age of 50 years

FAC: Delhi-Bikaner Road

TIME: 4.00 p.m.

PRODUCT: 304A, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar

WORK_OF_ART: The Claim Petition No, Claim Cases No, Lata Wadhwa and Ors, Claim Case No, Lata Wadhwa, Claim Case No, Prakash and Ors, Devi and Ors, Claim Case, Claim Cases No, Claim Cases No, Claim Case No, Claim Case No, Claim Case No. 56/2002.17

PERCENT: 9%, 12%

ORDINAL: third, first

EVENT: Ex.76