Smt.Mamta Gurjar & Ors. vs Atar Singh Sikarwar & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12872 MP

                               1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                        BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                 ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
          MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2004

     Between:-

1.   SMT. MAMTA GURJAR, W/O LATE SHRI
     VINOD SINGH GURJAR, AGED 22 YEARS,
     R/O VILLIAGE MAHARAJPURA, POLICE
     STATION-MAHARAJPURA,      DISTRICT-
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   AJEET GURJAR S/O LATE SHRI VINOD
     SINGH GURJAR, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O
     VILLIAGE   MAHARAJPURA,    POLICE
     STATION-  MAHARAJPURA,   DISTRICT-
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   ABHILAKH SINGH GURJAR S/O RAMDEEN
     KUSHWAH,     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     R/O VILLIAGE MAHARAJPURA, POLICE
     STATION-  MAHARAJPURA,     DISTRICT-
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   DWARIKA SINGH GURJAR S/O PRAYAG
     SINGH GURJAR, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O
     VILLIAGE MAHARAJPURA,      POLICE
     STATION- MAHARAJPURA,    DISTRICT-
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   SMT. SHANTI DEVI GURJAR W/O DWARIKA
     SINGH GURJAR, AGED- 48 R/O VILLIAGE
     MAHARAJPURA, POLICE STATION-
     MAHARAJPURA, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   PRAYAG SINGH GURJAR, S/O SUKHDEV
     SINGH GURJAR, R/O       VILLIAGE
     MAHARAJPURA, POLICE STATION-
     MAHARAJPURA, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              2


                                                                  ........APPELLANTS

       (BY SHRI KRIPAL SINGH - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     ATAR SINGH SIKARWR S/O SHRI
       NEKSIYA SIKARWAR, AGED 33 YEARS,
       R/O   GOPALPURA,    MORENA   AT
       PRESENT R/O VILLIAGE BHEELPURA,
       POLICE STATION- PURANI CHHAWANI,
       DISTRICT-   GWALIOR     (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

2.     SANTOSH TRIPATHI S/O RAMAVTAR
       TRIPATHI, AGED- 35 YEARS, R/O
       BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, AIRPORT
       ROAD,      POLICE      STATION-
       MAHARAJPURA, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.     THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
       LIMITED TH: DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
       SACHDEVA    SADAN,   PHOOLBAGH
       ROAD, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
                                                                  ........RESPONDENTS

      (SHRI N.S.  TOMAR-                    ADVOCATE            FOR       RESPONDENT
NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This application coming on for hearing, this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                      JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 16/09/2003 passed by 5 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No.55/2002.

By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of

Rs.3,11,900/- with interest to the claimants for the death of Vinod Singh, aged 26 years who died in the accident on 06/10/2002. According to claimants (wife, sons, father, mother of deceased), the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. Therefore, the claimants have filed this appeal.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 06/10/2002, Vinod Singh (since deceased) after loading boulder (Khande) in the offending dumper bearing Registration No.MP07-G-3169 was going towards Gwalior and as soon as he reached near Ramprasad Ka Pura, driver/respondent No.1 of the said dumper drove his dumper in rash and negligent manner, therefore, the said vehicle turned turtle, due to which, Vinod crushed under the dumper and succumbed to the same on the spot. Claimants therefore, filed claim case before the Claims Tribunal.

The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after assessing income of deceased at Rs.2100/- per month and holding that deceased was spending 1/3 on himself as personal expenses, the amount of dependency came to the tune of Rs.16,800/- and applying the multiplier of 18 according to the age of the deceased was 26 years and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500 towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,11,900/- in total.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was husband of appellant No.1, father of appellants No.2 and 3 and son of appellants No.4 and 5 and grandson of appellant No.6. He was building material supplier and used to earn money and spend it to meet the expenses of the family. Due to his death, the family suffered great monetary loss. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.25,200/-per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18. It is submitted that the income of the deceased as assessed is on lower side as he was earning

Rs.2,98,000/- per annum by farming and supplying building material. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that no sum has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of future prospects, whereas, deceased was only 26 years of age at the time of death and therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of monthly salary to be awarded towards future prospects. Further, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants/claimants under the head of funeral expenses is also on the lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper and do not deserve any enhancement. It is also submitted that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle and was sitting upon it. Neither he was building material supplier nor he was sitting for safety of stones loaded in it and was not going to unload the said material, while he was traveling in the offending dumper as a passenger and in this regard learned counsel for the appellants has not adduced any evidence. Despite this, learned Tribunal in Para Nos.15, 16 and 17 elaborately discussed and came to the conclusion that deceased was not sitting in the said dumper for safety of boulder (Khande) loaded in it but he was traveling as a passenger. Under these circumstances, learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation to the claimants.

Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Having gone through the rival submissions advanced by the parties and taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the amount awarded by the tribunal appears to be on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced. Keeping in view the above and the fact that accident occurred in the year 2002 and family of the deceased was dependent upon him, since at the time of accident, deceased- Vinod Singh was earning Rs.48,000/- per annum. Further in

the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any sum under the head of future prospects in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). As such, appellants are entitled for future prospects at the rate of 40% as the age of the deceased was proved as 26 years at the time of incident by the Claims Tribunal. Relevant para i.e. 59.4 of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"59.4. In case of deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

Accordingly the income of deceased is assessed at Rs.2500/- per month as per the guidelines of M.P. State Legal Services Authority and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.2,500 + 1000 = 3,500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 towards self expenditure, yearly income comes to Rs.28,000/-. Thus after applying multiplier of 18 in the light of judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. [(2000) 6 SCC

121), total amount comes to Rs.5,04,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the sum awarded by Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads is also on lower side and therefore, in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is required to be awarded. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation to the tune of Rs.5,74,000/-.

In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellants are held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs.2,62,100/- (Rs.5,74,000 - 3,11,900/-) in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount

of award shall not carry any interest however, if respondents fail to make the payment of compensation jointly and severely within a period of three months from today, then the enhanced amount of award shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

So far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned, this Court after going through the evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that finding arrived at by Claims Tribunal to the liability to pay the compensation is just and proper and needs no interference.

In view of the above, liability to pay the compensation is of owner and driver to pay the compensation to the claimants.

The instant appeal is allowed in part, accordingly. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4 dee473fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9 D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2022.09.28 17:25:46 +05'30'