Smt. Shashi Bai vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12710 MP

                                                                         1
                                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                                       BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                             ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                    MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2856 of 2007

                                               BETWEEN:-
                                       1.      SMT. SHASHI BAILATE RAJU @RAJ KUMAR,
                                               AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, GALI NO.2, J.P.NAGAR,
                                               BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       2.      MASTER ATUL S/O RAJU @ RAJ KUMAR, AGED
                                               ABOUT 2 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TH.NG. SMT.
                                               SAHSHI BAI GALI NO.2, J.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL
                                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       3.      KARAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GALI
                                               NO.2, J.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       4.      SMT. LAXMI BAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GALI
                                               NO.2, J.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                                               (BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE)

                                               AND
                                               THE     ORIENTAL     INSURANCE           CO.LTD.
                                               D.O.NO.I,102,103, BERASIA ROAD,          BHOPAL
                                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                                               (BY SHRI GULAB CHAND SOHANE - ADVOCATE)

                                             Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                          ORDER

This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 23.03.2007 passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Signature Not Verified SAN

Tribunal, Bhopal in MCC No.771/2005, whereby learned Tribunal has rejected Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.09.22 20:06:38 IST

the claim only on the ground that deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on the

motorcycle with which accident took place.

It is submitted that this appreciation of law by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Meera Bai and others Vs. Kamlesh and others, III (2007) ACC 355 (DB).

Shri Patwardhan fairly admits that instead of multiplier of 18 that of 17 will be applicable, but Future Prospect will have to be added.

Shri Gulab Chand Sohane has placed reliance on decisions of Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhav Singh Vs. Savirani and others, 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. 72 and General Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and others, 2009 ACJ 104 to submit that pillion rider will

not be covered and claim has been rightly dismissed.

However, when it is pointed out to Shri Sohane that both the judgments in case of Bhav Singh (supra) and M. Laxmi (supra), are in regard to act policy and not in regard to package policy, he admits that these judgments will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Package policy, Ex.D-1 is available on record.

This being the fact, claimants' case being squarely covered by decision of Division Bench of this Court in Meera Bai (supra), claim needs to be allowed.

As far as computation is concerned, Tribunal has considered income of deceased Rajkumar at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Deceased Raj Kumar is survived

by his wife and a child, so there will be 1/3rd deduction. After 1/3 rd deduction, net income comes to Rs.32,000/- per annum. On which 40% to be added

Signature Not Verified SAN towards Future Prospect and when multiplier of 17 is applied that will take

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL pecuniary compensation to Rs.7,61,600/-. Over and above which there will be Date: 2022.09.22 20:06:38 IST

addition of Rs.70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation and another sum of Rs.40,000/- for Loss of Parental Care to the claimant No.2 in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) SCC Online 410 , taking total compensation to Rs.8,71,600/- to which claimants will be entitled to. This amount will also earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

It is directed that 50% of the awarded amount shall remain invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt of Indian Post office or a nationalized bank in the name of claimant No.2 minor son of the deceased, till he attains majority.

In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.

Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.09.22 20:06:38 IST