Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Tina vs Akash Raidas on 26 April, 2023
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 28311 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. TINA W/O LATE JITENDRA MEHTA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, BHEELKHEDI TEHSIL ASHTA
DISTT. SEEHORE AT PRESENT R/O WRD NO 15
INDIRA COLONY ASHTA DISTT. SEEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRIYANSH MEHTA S/O LATE JITENDRA MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. TINA
BHEELKHEDI TEHSIL ASHTA DISTT. SEEHORE AT
PRESENT R/O WRD NO 15 INDIRA COLONY
ASHTA, DISTT. SEEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE FOR PETITONER)
AND
1. AKASH RAIDAS S/O CHOTELAL RAIDAS R/O NEAR
FAKAD BABA MANDIR, PATTHAR, RAGYASHA
NAGAR, RANJHI, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAYA VERMA W/O SHRI ANIL VERMA R/O 207
SMARAK PAT LORDGANJ, JAWAHARGANJ
WARD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BAJAJ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL,
OFFICE IN FRONT OF PRAGATI PETROL PUMP,
MP NAGAR, ZONE 2, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. KRISHNA BAI W/O JAGDISH PRASAD
MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O
BHEELKHEDI, TEH. ASHTA, DISTRICT SEEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. JAGDISH PRASAD MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 02-05-2023
14:40:41
2
SWAIMAL MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, R/O BHEELKHEDI TEH. ASHTA, DISTRICT
SEEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SWAMIMAL MAHESHWARI (DEAD) THR. LRS.
SMT. SITA BAI W/O SAWAIMAL MAHESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, R/O BHEELKHEDI, TEH.
ASHTA, DISTRICT SEEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT DAVE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 6)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging order dated 22.11.2021 passed in MCC No.188/2019 by
which, award was passed on basis of compromise.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the car belonging to respondent No.1 and
2 bearing No.MP-20-CE-9712 dashed with motorcycle of one Jitendra Mehta.
Jitendra Mehta died in said accident. An application was filed for compromising
the case for amount of lump-sum compensation of Rs.44,00,000/-. After
recording the statement of claimant, on basis of compromise award was
passed. Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay lump-
sum compensation of Rs.44,00,000/- within period of two months. In case of
delay, award amount will carry interest of 6% per annum. If any interim award
has been paid, same shall be adjusted in final award. Court passed order to
apportion the said amount. Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to Smt. Sita Bai -
applicant No.4 and applicant No.1 - Smt. Krishna Bai and applicant No.2 -
Jagdish Prasad Maheshwari was given an amount Rs.11,50,000/- each. Half of
said amount is to be deposited in saving bank account and half amount is to be
kept in FDR for period of 5 years. Rs.20,00,000/- was given to petitioner No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 02-05-2023
14:40:41
- Smt. Tina wife of deceased Jitendra Mehta, out of which Rs.5 lacs is to be
deposited in the account and rest of Rs.7,00,000/- is to be invested in FDR for
period of 5 years. Rs.8,00,000/- is given to petitioner No.2 - Priyansh Mehta
and amount is to be invested in FDR which is to be given to him after attaining
majority.
3. Counsel appearing for petitioner made a limited prayer that
apportionment of compensation may be done only between petitioners and
respondent no.4 in ratio of 80:20. Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on
judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . As per
siad judgment, father will not be considered as dependent and mother alone will
be considered as dependent. In absence of evidence of dependency, brothers
and sisters will not be considered as dependents. It is submitted that father and
grand-mother cannot be treated to be dependent and, therefore, apportionment
may be done accordingly.
4. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 supported the order
passed in compromise award.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Appeal against an order passed in compromise decree under Legal
Services Authorities Act, is not maintainable. In view of same, petitioner does
not have any alternate remedy, but to approach this Court for reapportionment
of compensation between the legal heirs and writ petition is entertained.
7. On going through facts of the case, it is clear that Krishna Bai, who is
respondent No.4, and petitioners are Class-I legal heirs and they were
dependents upon the deceased. Respondent No.5 and 6 cannot be treated to be
dependents. In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioners is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 02-05-2023
14:40:41
Amount of compensation be apportioned in ratio of 80:20 between petitioner
and respondent No.4. Respondent No.6 is grand-mother and father of deceased
is also in advance stage, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.6 will
not have any dependency on deceased, therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- which has been
awarded in favour of respondent No.6 is maintained. Rest of the amount of
Rs.43,00,000/- be apportioned between petitioner's and respondent No.4 in
ratio of 80:20 and principle decided for disbursed by Tribunal will remain same
as directed in award dated 22.11.2021.
8. In view of aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 02-05-2023
14:40:41
