Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ld. vs Vir Singh on 20 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 939 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. VEER SINGH S/O PUNNULAL UIKEY, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS.
2. SMT. SONA BAI W/O VEER SINGH UIKEY, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS.
BOTH R/O BORGAON, TAHSIL CHOURAI
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VIKAS JYOTSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BALWANT S/O SHAMRAO BALPANDE, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, BELGAON NAKA SOUNSAR
TAH. SOUNSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
2. OMPRAKASH S/O NARAYANDAS BAGANI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO. 7 SOUNSAR TAHSIL
SOUNSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE PARASIYA ROAD, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 805 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LD. DEPUTY MANAGER
(T.P. HUB) 1561 NAPIER TOWN DR. BARAT ROAD,
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2022.12.24 10:57:09 IST RUSSEL CROSSING, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. VIR SINGH S/O PUNNULAL UIKE, AGED ABOUT 32
YEAR S , BORGAON TEH. CHORAI, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
2. SMT. SONA BAI W/O VIRSINGH UIKE, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, BORGAON TEHSIL CHORA,I
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
3. BALWANT S/O SHAMRAO BALPANDE, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, BELGAON NAKA SONSAR
TEHSIL SONSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
4. OMPAKASH S/O NARAYANDAS BAGANI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO. 7 SONSAR TEHSIL
SONSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIKAS JYOTSHI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2)
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that he has paid deficit Court
fee of Rs.3,000/- and in support of the said submission he has filed a copy of
Online Court Fee Cyber Receipt, therefore, he prays that Court fee may be
taken on record and necessary amendment be permitted to be carried out.
2. On due consideration, this prayer is allowed. Deficit Court fee is taken
on record and claimants are permitted to make necessary amendment.
3. These miscellaneous appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed by the claimants and insurance company,
respectively, being aggrieved of award dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara (M.P.) in claim
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2022.12.24 10:57:09 IST
case No.03/2013 (Vir Singh and another Vs. Balwant and others).
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that Tribunal has awarded a
meager sum of Rs.56,500/- in favour of the claimants, who lost their one and a
half year old child Pravesh, who was hit by Tata truck bearing registration
No.MP28-G-0502. It is submitted that it is contrary to the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Insurance company has challenged the said award on the ground that the
impugned award is not a speaking order and is perverse and based on incorrect
interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accident took place
on 07.02.2011. Driver Balwant was having a licence to driver Light Motor
Vehicle-Non Transport(LMV-NT), which was effective from 20.08.1996 to
19.03.2013, issued by RTO, Nagpur and therefore, he was not competent to
drive the offending vehicle.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the truck which was seized bearing
registration No.MP28-G-0502 was a Tata LPT 1109 Turbo truck. Fitness was
available on the date of the accident vide Ex.D-2 and unladen weight of the
truck is mentioned in Ex.D-1 as 4020 kgs. Thus, as per the definition of LMV
given in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of the unladen
weight mentioned in Ex.D-1, the vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle, therefore,
merely absence of endorsement to drive a Transport vehicle, will not exonerate
the insurance company, especially, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
(2017) 14 SCC 663. Thus, appeal filed by the insurance company on the
ground of licence, is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
7. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Delhi High Court in
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
case of Jitendra Kumar and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Date: 2022.12.24 10:57:09 IST
Ltd. and another, decided on 31st July, 2009 in MAC Appeal No.68 of 2009
has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- in case of death of a three year
old child. Thus, following the same principles as has been followed by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court replying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC 261, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- will
be payable in place of Rs.56,000/-.
8. Thus, there will be addition of Rs.3,19,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs,
Nineteen Thousand) to which claimants will be entitled to in addition to the
amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. This additional amount will
also earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till the date of actual payment. Other terms and conditions of the award
shall remain intact.
9. In above terms, these miscellaneous appeals are disposed of.
10. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2022.12.24 10:57:09 IST
