Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company vs Dilip Singh on 9 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MA No. 1179/2013
MA No. 40/2014
Jahar Singh vs. Jagdish Shama & others
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1179 OF 2013
Jaleshwari ..... APPELLANT
Versus
Surendra Singh & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
MISC. APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2014
The Oriental Insurance Company ..... APPELLANT
Versus
Dilip Singh & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri R.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant in Misc.
Appeal No.1179/2013 and for Respondent No.3 in Misc. Appeal
No. 40/2014.
Shri S.N.Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company in both the appeals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 04.03.2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Passed on 9th March, 2021)
This judgment shall govern the disposal of both
Misc. Appeals No.1179/2013 and 40/2014, as both the appeals
MA No. 40/2014
Jahar Singh vs. Jagdish Shama & others
have arisen out of the Award dated 13.08.2013 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 12/2013.
2. Misc. Appeal No. 1179/2013 has been filed by the
claimant-injured assailing the award impugned on the point of
inadequacy of the compensation.
3. Misc. Appeal No.40/2014 has been filed by Insurance
Company assailing the impugned award on the ground that the
insured Jeep No. MP06/B-0645 was insured as private vehicle
under 'Act only policy' and risk of nine passengers was covered
while at the time of accident the jeep was being plied as taxi and
carrying more than eleven passengers, hence the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to
the manner the accident has occurred, to burden the judgment on
the said issues. It is only the liability on the part of the insurance
company to pay the compensation and inadequacy of the
compensation is being considered and decided in succeeding
paragraphs.
Misc. Appeal No. 1179/2013
5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the claimant prayed that
the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on
lower side. The amount awarded against conventional heads is
very less. Hence, the amount under award should be enhanced
reasonably.
6. On going through the record, it is found that the alleged
accident took place on 26.11.2008. It is alleged that the occupation
of the injured-claimant was work of meson and cattle business and
he was earning Rs.8000/- per month therefrom and due to multiple
fractures in left leg injured remained admitted in District Hospital
Morena from 26.11.2008 to 5.12.2008. He was operated and steel
MA No. 40/2014
Jahar Singh vs. Jagdish Shama & others
rod was inserted and there was permanent disability to the extent
of 35%, therefore, the appellant was not able to do any work.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
amount awarded, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be
inadequate.
8. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just
compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be
in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to
achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be
viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the
legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part
of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The
formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla
Verma vs. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and it has been approved in
Reshma Kumari v. Madam Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]. The age
and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the
basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
MA No. 40/2014
Jahar Singh vs. Jagdish Shama & others
proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot
substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just
compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a
balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the
pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the
duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an
endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which
in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven
income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there
has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty,
stability and consistency. We approve the principle of
"standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is
determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.
9. On the basis of above discussion and considering the fact
that the parties have arrived at a consensus that a sum of Rs.
95,000/- is enhanced as lump sum amount in addition to the
amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Misc. Appeal
No. 1179/2013 is hereby disposed of. The appellant-injured is held
entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.95,000/- in addition to
the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims
Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs.2,64,530/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount
be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order
passed by this Court.
Misc. Appeal No. 40/2014
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company that the insured Jeep No. MP06/B-0645 was
insured as private vehicle under 'Act only policy' and risk of nine
MA No. 40/2014
Jahar Singh vs. Jagdish Shama & others
passengers was covered while at the time of accident the jeep was
being plied as taxi and carrying more than eleven passengers,
hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation. It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the
insurance company that the recovery right in favour of the
insurance company be protected in the light of the judgment
passed in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Sanju and others,
reported in 2019 (4) MPLJ 164.
11. In connected appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 1179/2013)
filed by claimant-injured against the same award dated 13.8.2013,
the present insurance company has agreed to pay a lump sum
amount of Rs.95000/- in addition to the amount of compensation
already awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimant-
injured. Therefore, the contentions raised by the insurance
company in Misc. Appeal No. 40/2014 are not now required to be
delved into. Misc. Appeal No. 40/2014 is accordingly disposed of.
However, considering the arguments advanced by the insurance
company, in the interest of justice, the insurance company shall
have the right to recover the amount of compensation from the
owner, in the light of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Sanju
and others (supra).
12. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge.
(yog)
YOGESH VERMA
2021.03.09
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
17:32:13 +05'30'
