Dinesh Shrivas vs Ramesh Ojha
2022 Latest Caselaw 13956 MP

                                                      01

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    AT GWALIOR
                       BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
               ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2022


            MISC. APPEAL No. 387 of 2014


Between:-
1. DINESH SHRIVAS S/O LATE SHRI
CHOTELAL SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, NAKA CHANDRAWADNI THANA
JHANSI ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIJAY S/O DINESH SHRIVAS, AGED
ABOUT        13    YEARS,      NAKA
CHANDRAWADANI,THANA
JANSIROAD,,GWL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AJAY S/O DINESH SHRIVAS, AGED
ABOUT      12    YEARS,   PRE.NAKA
CHANDRAWADANI, THANA JHANSI
ROAD,DISTT.GWL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SANJEEV S/O DINESH SHRIVAS, AGED
ABOUT      10    YEARS,   PRE.NAKA
CHANDRAWADANI, THANA JHANSI
ROAD,DISTT.GWL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KU.POOJA D/O DINESH SHRIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, PRE.NAKA
CHANDRAWADANI, THANA JHANSI
ROAD,DISTT.GWL. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                          .....APPELLANT
(SMT. MEENA SINGHAL, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

AND

1.    RAMESH   OJHA     S/O   SHRI
                                                                02


  RAMNATH OJHA GRAM CHIROL
  THANA    MEHGAON (MADHYA
  PRADESH)
  2. YOGENDRA SINGH BHADOURIYA
  S/O BANKE SINGH CHATURVEDI
  NAGAR,BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
  3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
  COM.LTD. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
  MANDAL KARLAYA CITY CENTRE
  LIC OFFICE KE PAS,GWL. (MADHYA
  PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
  (SHRI NARESH SINGH TOMAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
  RESPONDENT [R-3].
      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court

passed the following:

                         JUDGMENT

Appellants/claimants preferred this appeal being aggrieved

by the award passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.79/2013 on 01.02.2014.

In brief, facts of the case are that deceased was the wife of

appellant No.1 and mother of appellants No. 2, 3, 4 and 5. She

along with her daughter and nephew was going from Bhind to

Ahmadabad by sitting in a bus bearing registration

No.MP07P0153 which was driven by respondent No.1 in the

ownership of respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

The respondent No.1 was driving the aforesaid bus rash and

negligently, due to which, in front of 18 Battalion SAF Bhind the

aforesaid bus turned turtle by which passengers sitting in the

aforesaid bus got injuries. Deceased Suman was first taken to

district hospital Bhind and from there she was referred to Birla

hospital where she was operated. But during treatment on 5.7.2012

she died. Before this report was lodged on dehatinalishi thereafter

on the basis of dehatinalishi FIR bearing Crime No. 65/2012 was

registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted

against respondent No.1 before the competent court. At the time of

accident deceased Suman was of the age of 29 years and she used

to do the work of tailoring. From tailoring she used to earn

Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides this, she used to manage home

affairs of the appellants. Due to her death appellants life have also

become miserable. They filed an application under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicle Act seeking adequate compensation due to the

death of the deceased. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have not submitted

their reply. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company in their reply

has submitted that driver of the offending vehicle was not having a

valid and effective licence besides this there was no permit and

fitness certificate. Learned tribunal by taking in account income of

the deceased as Rs.3000/- partly allowed the application and

passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,30,000/- Aggrieved by the

aforesaid award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this

appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that besides

house hold responsibilities deceased used to do the job of

tailoring. It is true that from side of appellant no income certificate

regarding income from tailoring has been submitted, but during

evidence the appellant has submitted tailoring diploma of the

deceased of the year 2005. In these situation, she should be termed

as skilled. As per SALSA guidelines minimum wages of the

skilled labourer on the date of accident i.e. 23.06.2012 was

Rs.5050/- per month.

Learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the

appeal on the ground that learned tribunal adequately passed the

compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that learned

tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 36 years but

in actual as per voter ID card her age was 28 years.

As far as age of the deceased is concerned, the learned

tribunal in para No.17 of its judgment elaborately discussed and

was of the opinion that age of the deceased was 36 years. Reasons

assigned in para No. 17 does not require any interference.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that in admission form of Birla hospital and postmortem, doctor

mentioned the age of the deceased as 35 years.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well

as the aforesaid documents, this Court is of the opinion that at the

time of accident the deceased was of the age of 35 years. As per

the learned tribunal she was having diploma in tailoring. In these

situation, she comes in the category of skilled. As per SALSA

guidelines on the date of incident i.e. 23.06.2012 income of the

skilled labourer was Rs.5050/-. Hence, income of the deceased is

held to be Rs.5050/- per month. Thus, her yearly income would be

Rs.60,600/-. In the light of decision of the Apex Court in the case

of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi as reported in

2017 (16) SCC 680 claimants are entitled for addition of 40% of

the income towards future prospect. After addition of future

prospect, total amount comes to Rs.84,840/-. After deducting 1/4

towards personal expenses of the deceased, then dependency of

the claimants would be Rs.63,630/-. The deceased was 35 years of

age, hence, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

(supra) multiplier of 16 would be applicable. Thus, total amount

comes to Rs.10,18,080/-+1,60,000/- (medical expenses as awarded

by the Claims Tribunal)=1,178,080/-. Adding Rs.70000/- towards

other heads (in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of

Pranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation comes to

Rs.12,48080/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.8,30,000/-. Thus, claimants are further entitled to receive

enhanced amount of Rs.4,18,080/- (Rs.12,48080-Rs.8,30,000/-

=4,18,080). The enhanced amount of Rs.4,18,080/- shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till

payment. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid

extent. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain

as it is.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE van

VANDANA VERMA 2022.11.01 10:16:48 -07'00'