Mst. Dirjiya vs Shiv Prasad
2022 Latest Caselaw 13832 MP

                                                                      1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                            ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 1718 of 2011

                                              BETWEEN:-
                                        1.    MST. DIRJIYA W/O LATE RAM PRATAP KOL,
                                              AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILL. CHHIRHA, POST
                                              GANJAS, P.S. AND TAH. NEW RAM NAGAR,
                                              DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        2.    RAM PRAKASH KOL S/O LATE RAM PRATAP
                                              KOL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL. CHHIRHA,
                                              POST GANJAS, P.S. & TAH. NEW RAM NAGAR,
                                              DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        3.    MANOJ KUMAR KOL S/O LATE RAM PRATAP
                                              KOL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, VILL. CHHIRHA,
                                              POST GANJAS, P.S. & TAH. NEW RAM NAGAR,
                                              DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....APPELLANTS
                                              (BY SHRI ARUBENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - ADVOCATE)

                                              AND
                                        1.    SHIV PRASAD S/O SHRI RAMADHAR PATEL,
                                              AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ITMA KOTHAR, P.S.
                                              AMARPATAN,   DISTT.  SATNA  (MADHYA
                                              PRADESH)

                                        2.    SUKHENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI YADVENDRA
                                              S I N G H ITMA KOTHAR, P.S.AMARPATAN,
                                              DISTT.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        3.    DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
                                              INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE
                                              REWA ROAD, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                              (MS. ANJALI BANERJEE - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified                        NO.3. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2)
  SAN




Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
                                             This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Date: 2022.10.27 18:49:13 IST
                                                                               2
                                        following:
                                                                              ORDER

It is jointly submitted that this matter was previously settled in a Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.6,13,000/-, as is evident from the copy of the order, but since Insurance Company could not procure sanction in time, therefore, amount could not be paid to the claimants.

2. However, Shri Arubendra Singh submits that said settlement was arrived in the year 2016. Insurance Company never moved any application after receiving permission to settle the amount.

3. It is submitted by Ms. Banerjee that since permission was not received, M.C.C.No.2589/2017 was filed seeking recall of the award passed in Lok

Adalat on 12.11.2016 in M.A.No.1718/2011 and said MCC was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2017.

4. Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar, submits that said MCC was allowed behind his back and against the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is submitted that such MCC or recall application was not maintainable and only remedy which was available to the Insurance Company was that of filing of a writ petition. However, without commenting on the merits of the order passed in MCC No.2589/2017, the fact of the matter is that six years old settlement cannot be compelled to be accepted by the claimants. Appeal is to be heard on its own merits.

5. This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved of award dated 22.12.2010, passed by

learned 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna (M.P.), in MVC Signature Not Verified SAN No.378/2008, on three grounds, namely, deceased at the time of the accident which took place on 17.09.2007, was aged about 49 years, 11 months 16 days Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.10.27 18:49:13 IST

and, therefore, multiplier of 13 will be applicable as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], but learned Claims Tribunal arbitrarily applied multiplier of 11.

6. It is further submitted that as deceased was a permanent employee and was working as Assistant Grade-II under Superintending Engineer Ban Sagar Dam Project, Deolond, therefore, 30% future prospects is to be added in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. It is further submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/-under the non-pecuniary heads, whereas, Rs.70,000/- under the head of loss of estate, last rites and loss of consortium will be admissible to the claimant No.1 and a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants No. 2 and 3 for loss of parental consortium in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [2020 SCC Online SC 410].

7. Ms. Anjali Banerjee, supports the award and submits that since claim was already settled in a Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.6,13,000/-, Insurance Company is liable to pay only that much amount and nothing further.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,

as far as settlement is concerned, that settlement was sought to be annulled by the Insurance Company itself by filing MCC No.2589/2017 which was decided on 09.12.2017. Thus, that settlement was withdrawn by the Insurance Company in a unilateral manner and thus that settlement cannot be said to be Signature Not Verified SAN

still binding after lapse of six years on the claimants. Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.10.27 18:49:13 IST

9. As far as ground of applying an incorrect multiplier is concerned, judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) is of the year 2009. Learned Claims Tribunal while passing award in the year 2010 i.e. on 22.12.2010, should have taken into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). But, it appears that Tribunal was oblivious of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court as was available on the date of passing of the award. Thus, multiplier of 13 will be applicable instead of 11.

10. Similarly, in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), 30% addition is to be made towards future prospects. Thus, when these aspects are taken into consideration, then it is evident that the learned Tribunal has accepted after deduction dependency of the family of the deceased at Rs.82,800/- per annum. When 30% is added towards future prospects, it comes out to Rs.1,07,640/-. Multiplier of 13 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.13,99,320/-, over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/- under the head of loss of estate, loss of spousal consortium and last rites, another sum of Rs.80,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 and 3 for loss of parental consortium taking total compensation to Rs.15,49,320/- against a sum of Rs.9,25,800/- awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be addition of Rs.6,23,520/- to which claimants will be entitled to. This additional amount will also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. Other terms and conditions of the award fastening the liability and appropriation of compensation shall remain intact.

Signature Not Verified SAN However, it is directed that this additional sum of Rs.6,23,520/- along with

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI accrued interest shall be invested in a monthly income scheme of Indian Post Date: 2022.10.27 18:49:13 IST

Office or a Nationalized Bank for a period of at least five years so that claimant No.1 will be entitled to use its interest for day to day expenses, but will not be in a position to touch the additional principal amount for a period of five years.

11. In above terms, appeal is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.10.27 18:49:13 IST