Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Varsha Mishra on 5 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 5th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 26 of 2001
Between:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH
IN-CHARGE LEGAL CELL, 1454, WRIGHT TOWN,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. AMRIT RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. VARSHA MISHRA, WIFE OF LATE
SANDEEP MISHRA, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O OF G-
10/38, NORTH T.T. NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KU. AKANSHA MISHRA D/O LATE SHRI
SANDEEP MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
MINOR THROUGH MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. VARSHA MISHRA, WD/O LATE
SANDEEP MISHRA GG-10/38, NORTH TT NAGAR
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KU. ABHILASHA MISHRA D/O LATE SHRI
SANDEEP MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
MINOR THROUGH MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. VARSHA MISHRA, WD/O LATE
SANDEEP MISHRA G-10/38 NORTH TT NAGAR
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHYAMSUNDER MISHRA S/O RAMGULAM
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O GG-10/38,
NORTH TT NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. KUSUM MISHRA S/O SHYAMSUNDER
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GG-10/38,
NORTH TT NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.05 19:54:35 IST
6. SHWETA MISHRA D/O NOT MENTION, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O G 10/38 NORTH TT
2
NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. PREETAMPAL SINGH S/O TRILOCHAN, ADULT
S I N G H MIG 168, MPEB COLONY
(CHHATTISGARH)
8. MOIRI KHAN S/O SAYEED KHAN, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BHAINSKHEDI, P.S. KHAJURI SADAK
BHOPAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O JAITUN
BEE, BALAIPURA, TALAIYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ISHTEYAQ HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is taken up. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company,
being aggrieved of award dated 08.09.200, passed in Claim Case No.41/99, by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.).
2. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the cheque
which was given by the insured towards the payment of premium seeking
insurance of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP-23-D/8455, was
dishonoured and, therefore, the policy became a nullity and was not
enforceable.
3. Shri Ishtiaq Ahmed, in his turn, submits that in the light of the judgment of
Division Bench in National Insurance Company Limited, Jabalpur Vs.
Pawan Kumar Arun Verma [2000 (2) MPLJ 129] , it is held that Insurance
Company is required to establish the fact of intimation to the policy holder
about the dishonour of the cheque by producing the receipt of sending the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
postal letter by a registered post and the acknowledgement due. Since the
Insurance Company could not produce such material on record, then findings
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.05 19:54:35 IST
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal could not be said to have suffered
from any error.
4. Placing reliance on this judgment in National Insurance Company
Limited, Jabalpur Vs. Pawan Kumar Arun Verma (supra) , it is submitted
that the sole ground raised by the Insurance Company is not legally tenable.
5. This fact is gracefully admitted by Smt. Amrit Ruprah.
6. As far as cross-objections filed by claimants are concerned, claimants had
filed cross-objection on three grounds, namely, one fourth deductions should
have been made as deceased Sandeep is survived by wife, minor children,
father and mother, so also sister. Second ground is that future prospects is not
awarded and third ground is that consortium has been awarded only to wife,
whereas, even children are entitled to consortium in the light of judgment of
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur
@ Satwinder Kaur [2020 SC Online SC 410].
7. After hearing the counsel for the objector, it is evident that no error can be
attributed in making one third deductions, inasmuch as, in the absence of any
cogent evidence to the contrary mother of the deceased and sister of the
deceased cannot be said to be dependent on her, during the life time of their
husband and father, respectively.
8. Tribunal has construed income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- (Rupees
Eighteen Thousand) per annum, for an accident which took place on
04.03.1998. Though claimants claimed that deceased was running a factory,
but same could not be proved. Age of the deceased has come on record as 35
years, therefore, 40% is to be added to the notional income after making one
Signature Not Verified
SAN
third deductions i.e. to Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand) as has been
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.05 19:54:35 IST
accepted by the Tribunal, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16
SCC 680].
9. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16, that will take
pecuniary compensation to Rs.2,68,800/-(Rupees Two Lacs, Sixty Eight
Thousand and Eight Hundred). Over and above, this claimants are entitled to
sum of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand) under the head of non-
pecuniary compensation plus Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) @
Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) each for the loss of parental affection to
the minor children. Thus, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,18,800/-
(Rupees Four Lacs, Eighteen Thousand and Eight Hundred) against a sum of
Rs.2,04,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs and Four Thousand) awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be an enhancement to the tune of
Rs.2,14,800/-(Rupees Two Lacs, Fourteen Thousand and Eight Hundred) to
which claimants will be entitled in addition to the amounts awarded by learned
Claims Tribunal and this additional amount will earn interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, till the date of actual payment.
Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
10. In above terms, both the appeals and cross-objections are disposed of.
11. Let record of the Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.05 19:54:35 IST
