Smt. Jyoti vs Alankar Ood
2022 Latest Caselaw 16892 MP

                                                     1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                         ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                           MISC. APPEAL No. 3798 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SMT. JYOTI W/O LATE SHRI MATADEEN
                                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, GRAM SUBHAS
                                PURA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    KU.ANUSHKA D/O MATADEEN, AGED ABOUT 11
                                Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: THROUGH MINOR
                                MOTHER SMT.JYOTI GRAM SUBHASHPURA
                                THANA SUBHASHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    KU.BHUMI SHARMA D/O LATE MATADEEN
                                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                THROUGH MINOR MOTHER SMT.JYOTI GRAM
                                SUBHASHPURA THANA SUBHASHPURA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    HARSHIT SHARMA S/O LATE MATADEEN
                                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                THROUGH MINOR MOTHER SMT.JYOTI GRAM
                                SUBHASHPURA THANA SUBHASHPURA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    KU.NAINA SHARMA D/O LATE MATADEEN
                                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                THROUGH MINOR MOTHER SMT.JYOTI GRAM
                                SUBHASHPURA THANA SUBHASHPURA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY MR. AKHLESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    ALANKAR OOD S/O SHRI KHANAIYALAL OOD
                                OCCUPATION: DRIVER   GRAM   BARKHEDI
                                GAROTH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    PRAKSH CHAND S/O RAMESH CHAND GRAM
                                GAROTH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 21-Dec-22
4:36:48 PM
                                                             2
                          3.    BRANCH    MANAGER    SHRIRAM     GENERAL
                                INSURANCE    COMPANY     LTD. D.M.TOWER,
                                SECOND FLOOR, NEW PALASIYA ROAD (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY MR. BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

                                Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Aggrieved by the dismissal of application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the claimants/appellants preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act against the order passed on 03.11.2017 by Second

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Case No.500193/2015.

In brief, facts of the case are that the deceased Matadeen aged 34 years was the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 and son of appellant No.6. On 11.10.2015 at 3 am, Matadeen along with his friend went to Bara. He got down to check the tire at that time respondent No.1 was driving truck No.RJ 20 GA 3151 rashly and negligently and hit Matadeen. Due to which, he sustained grievous injury and during treatment he died. Due to aforesaid accident, a case has been registered bearing Crime No.347/2015 under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against respondent No.1. At the time of incident, offending vehicle was in the ownership of respondent No.2, insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing a job of driver having driving license No.MP 33 R 0060557 and used to get Rs.10,000/- per month by way of salary. The appellants/claimants were dependent on his income. Due to his sudden death, the appellants/claimants are hand to mouth. Therefore, they preferred an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 21-Dec-22 4:36:48 PM

Act seeking adequate compensation. Before the Claims Tribunal, claimants have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. In rebuttal, no evidence has been adduced from the respondents' side.

Learned Tribunal dismissed their application on the ground that they cannot prove the accident occurred by offending vehicle No.RJ 20 GA 315.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the appellants/claimants and no interference is warranted.

From the side of the appellants/claimants, claimant Jyoti Sharma in her statement has stated that deceased Matadeen was her husband and was doing a job of driver of heavy vehicle. On the date of incident i.e. 11.10.2015, he got injured in the accident and due to aforesaid accident, an FIR has been lodged at Police Station Sadar Bara against the driver of offending vehicle No,RJ 20 GA 3151 on the same day which is Ex.P/1. Vehicle was mechanically examined and examination report is Ex.P/2. FIR was lodged by Deepak Sharma. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against respondent No.1. Deceased was doing job under Deepak Sharma as a driver and was getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. During cross-examination, she has admitted that she was not on the spot. She denied that accident was not taken place by the offending vehicle. She denied that Matatdeen was not driver of offending

vehicle and he was not earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that no sum has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of future prospects, whereas, deceased was only 34 years of age at the time of death and therefore,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 21-Dec-22 4:36:48 PM

in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of monthly salary to be awarded towards future prospects.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

It is true that Deepak Sharma has been examined by the police who lodged a report and whose under, the deceased used to work as a driver. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the accident but he has seen Matadeen beneath of tire of truck. His evidence is well supported by the prompt FIR, thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted by the police. Under such circumstances, what else best evidence is required to be adduced as also in rebuttal, there is no evidence. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from payment of compensation amount on the grounds as pleaded on its behalf. After taking into all the evidence available on record, the income of deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- appears to be on the lower side, therefore, the same is being enhanced to Rs.8,800/- as per the guidelines of the SALSA.

In the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Claimants are entitled for following amount:-

Yearly income = Rs. 8,800 x 12 = Rs. 1,05,600/-

Dependency (3/4) Rs. 1,05,600 - 26,400 = Rs. 79,200/- Multiplier of 15 (aged is between 35-40 years)= Rs.11,88,000/- Future prospect (40% of Rs. 11,88,000/-) = Rs. 4,75,200/- Other heads = Rs. 70,000/- ---------------------------------------------

                             ----------------------  Total          =
                             Rs.17,33,200/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 21-Dec-22
4:36:48 PM

In view of the forgoing discussion, Misc. Appeal is hereby allowed. The appellants/ claimants are held entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs.17,33,200/- alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing the claim case.

With aforesaid observation, instant MA No.3798/2017 is disposed of in above terms.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE bj/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 21-Dec-22 4:36:48 PM