National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ravindra Singh & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12480 MP

                                  1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                          AT GWALIOR
                              BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

                 ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                 MISC. APPEAL No. 283 of 2004

BETWEEN:-
1.RAVINDRA SINGH S/O MOHAN SINGH, AGE 46 YEARS

OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

2. UDAIBHAN SINGH S/O RAVINDRA SINGH, AGED 23 YEARS

OCCUPATION SERVICE.

3. KU. NEELAM D/O RAVINDRA SINGH, AGED 22 YEARS

OCCUPATION STUDY

4. RAMBHAN SINGH S/O RAVINDRA SINGH AGED 17 YEARS

MINOR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER HIMSELF RAVINDRA SINGH

OCCUPATION STUDY

5. ARVIND SINGH S/O RAVINDRA SINGH AGED 9 YEARS MINOR,

NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER HIMSELF RAVINDRA SINGH

OCCUPATION STUDY

6. SATYENDRA SINGH S/0 RAVINDRA SINGH AGED 7 YEARS

MINOR, NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER HIMSELF RAVINDRA SINGH

OCCUPATION STUDY

ALL CASTE TOMAR, RESIDENT OF GRAM RITHWARI, THANA PORSA, DISTRICT
MORENA. HAAL NIWASIGAN RANDHEER COLONY, BHIND ROAD, GOLA KA
MANDIR, GWALIOR (M.P.)
                                     2

                                                          .....PETITIONER

 (SHRI B.D.VERMA-ADVOCATE)

 AND
 1. VIRENDRA SINGH S/O JAGDISH SINGH TOMAR

 OCCUPATION DRIVER, RESIDENT OF GRAM SAYPURA THANA PORSA, DISTRICT
 MORENA M.P.

 2. RAJBAHADUR SINGH S/O MOHAN SINGH TOMAR, OCCUPATION REGISTERED
 OWNER TRACTOR NO.MP.006 JA 5528 AND TROLLEY NO.MP.06J 8898
 RESIDENT OF GRAM RITHWARI THANA PORSA, PARGANA AMBAH, DISTRICT
 MORENA , M.P.

 3. NATIONAL INDURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, IN FRONT OF HARIRAM TALKIES,
 M,.S.ROAD MORENA M.P.

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS

 (SHRI B.N.MALHOTRA-ADVOCATE)

                                    &


                   MISC. APPEAL No. 311 of 2004

 BETWEEN:-
 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER

 (B.N.MALHOTRA-ADVOCATE

 RAVINDRA SINGH & ORS. OCCUPATION: (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS

 (SHRI B.D.VERMA-ADVOCATE)



      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:

                             JUDGMENT

By this common order, MA No.283/2004 filed by

appellants/claimants and M.A. No.311/2004 filed by Insurance

Company are decided and this common order shall govern the disposal

of these two appeals. As the facts of these two appeals are same and

they are arising out of common Award dated 15.01.2004 passed in

Claim Case No.33/03 by 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Gwalior, therefore, they are heard

analogously.

As regards claim petition No.311/2004, learned tribunal by

impugned award held liable insurance company to pay by way of

compensation Rs.1,08,000/- to the appellants/claimants with interest 9%

per annum.

Learned insurance company submitted that deceased Rekha wife

of claimant No.1 and mother of 2 to 6 was travelling in the offending

trolley bearing registration No. M.P.006 JA 8878 attached to tractor

bearing registration No. MP 06 JA 5528 along with other villagers were

going from village Rithwari for darshan of Hanumanji temple situated

at Dadaroua. When the aforesaid tractor trolley at 1.30 pm reached at

Mehgaon road near Mou driver of the tractor respondent No.1 Virendra

Singh drove the tractor rash and negligently, due to this, aforesaid

tractor trolley overturned. Rekha and other persons sitting in the trolley

got injured. They were referred to Military Hospital Morar and

thereafter to Gwalior. During treatment in J.A. Hospital Gwalior she

died. Due to aforesaid accident crime No.148/2002 under Section 304

IPC was registered at Police Station Mou. After investigation, charge

sheet has been submitted. The deceased was not authorized to travel in

the aforesaid trolley because insurance of tractor trolley was done for

agricultural purpose and she was travelling as a gratuitous passenger.

Hence, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. Despite

this, trial Court fastened the liability on Insurance Company.

In this behalf, from the side of insurance company evidence of

Rajnish Kohali, Branch Manager was adduced who has stated that

aforesaid tractor along with trolley was insured with them. Policy is Ex-

D/1. The tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes. As per

policy, persons travelling in trolley were not covered for insurance

purposes. Deceased and other persons were travelling as a gratuitous

passengers. In these situation, Insurance company is not liable to pay

the compensation. During cross-examination, he has specifically stated

that family members of the owner of the tractor cannot travel in the

trolley. He denied that at the time of accident the owner of the tractor

was going to market to sell his agriculture produce. He denied that

owner of the tractor has not committed any breach.

As regards claim petition No.283/2004 in regard to death of

deceased Rekha, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants submitted that the tribunal assessed the income of

deceased Rs.900/- per month which is on very lower side. From the side

of claimants evidence of Bindol Singh was adduced who has stated that

besides deceased Rekha in the aforesaid trolley of the tractor 10-20

persons were also sitting who were going to Dadroua Dham. On the

way tractor trolley overturned, due to which, Rekha succumbed to

the injuries.

Looking to the evidence came on record from both the sides, it is

quite clear that deceased Rekha along with other villagers in number

10-20 were coming from their village for darshan at Dadraua Dham.

During journey, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the

tractor tilled down and deceased got injured and thereafter during

treatment she died. The aforesaid tractor trolley was insured for

agricultural purposes not for carrying passengers. In these situation,

learned tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurance

company. The insurance company is hereby exonerated.

As far as compensation is concerned, while calculating the

amount of compensation the learned tribunal assessed the income of the

deceased as Rs.900/- per month which is on very lower side. She was

having four childrens and a husband. From early in the morning till

night she has to maintain the house, prepare food, clean the house, in

these position the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3000/- per

month for calculating compensation.

Arguments of both the advocates heard.

Perused the record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be

appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- in place

of Rs.900 per month, as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus,

her annual salary would be Rs.36,000/-. The deceased was married and

there were five dependents on her income therefore, 1/4th of her income

is to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Thus, dependency of

the claimants would be Rs.27,000/-.

As per the law at the time of accident deceased was 45 years. In

the light of the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay

Sethi, 2017 there should be addition of 25% of future prospects. Thus,

after addition of future of prospect total amount comes to Rs.33,750/-. If

multiplier of 14 applied as applied by the Claims Tribunal then total

amount comes to Rs.4,72,500/-. Beside that claimants will be entitled to

a sum of Rs. 70,000/-.(for loss of consortium, lost of estate and funeral

expenses). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.5,42,500/-

which the claimants will be entitled to receive from respondent No.3

Insurance Company with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of this

appeal. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- Thus,

claimants are further entitled to compensation of Rs.4,34,500/-. Rest of

the terms and conditions of the award shall remain as it is.

With the aforesaid, both the Misc, Appeals are disposed of.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE VAN

VANDANA VERMA 2022.09.22 17:39:18 -07'00'