Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Megha on 3 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 3rd OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 548 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AR
CENTRE POINT COMPLEX, M.L.B. ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.H. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
MEGHA D/O LT. SHRI HARISH KUMAR, U/G
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
1. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRERNA D/O LATE SHRI HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
2. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAURABH S/O LATE HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
3. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
MULKRAJ (DEAD) S/O SHRI JEEVANMAL AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
4.
BAZAR, DABAR, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. SHANTIDEVI (DEAD) W/O MULKRAJ AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
5.
BAZAR, DABRA, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
2
VIJAY SHINDE S/O SHRI BALWANT SHINDE
OCCUPATION: R/O POST VILL.GHAT NANDRE,
6.
POST OFFICE KOTE MANKA, DISTT.SANGALI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRESS EXPRESS, LOGICS PRIVATE LTD. THR.
RANJIT PATEL, BEDAG TAL, POST MIRAJ
OCCUPATION: DISTT. SANGALI, THR. POWER OF
7. ATTORNEY HOLDER & MANAGER, PRESS
EXPRESS TRANSPORT COMPANY DILIP MANVI
S/O HARI MANVI, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O
MALANPUR, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. B.D. VERMA AND MR. KRIPAL BATHAM - ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 - CLAIMANTS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISC. APPEAL No. 549 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AR
CENTRE POINT COMPLEX, M.L.B. ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.H. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
MEGHA D/O LT. SHRI HARISH KUMAR, U/G
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
1. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRERNA D/O LATE SHRI HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
2. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAURABH S/O LATE HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
3. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MULKRAJ (DEAD) S/O SHRI JEEVANMAL AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
BAZAR, DABAR, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
3
PRADESH)
SMT. SHANTIDEVI (DEAD) W/O MULKRAJ AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
5.
BAZAR, DABRA, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
VIJAY SHINDE S/O SHRI BALWANT SHINDE
OCCUPATION: R/O POST VILL.GHAT NANDRE,
6.
POST OFFICE KOTE MANKA, DISTT.SANGALI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRESS EXPRESS, LOGICS PRIVATE LTD. THR.
RANJIT PATEL, BEDAG TAL, POST MIRAJ
OCCUPATION: DISTT. SANGALI, THR. POWER OF
7. ATTORNEY HOLDER & MANAGER, PRESS
EXPRESS TRANSPORT COMPANY DILIP MANVI
S/O HARI MANVI, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O
MALANPUR, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. B.D. VERMA AND MR. KRIPAL BATHAM - ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 - CLAIMANTS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISC. APPEAL No. 550 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AR
CENTRE POINT COMPLEX, M.L.B. ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.H. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
MEGHA D/O LT. SHRI HARISH KUMAR, U/G
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
1. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRERNA D/O LATE SHRI HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
2. MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SAURABH S/O LATE HARISH KUMAR
OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G OF GRAND FATHER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
4
MULKRAJ S/O JEEVANLAL, R/O TIWARIPURA,
SARAFA BAZAR, DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
MULKRAJ (DEAD) S/O SHRI JEEVANMAL AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
4.
BAZAR, DABAR, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. SHANTIDEVI (DEAD) W/O MULKRAJ AHUJA
OCCUPATION: R/O TIWARIPURA, SARAFA
5.
BAZAR, DABRA, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
VIJAY SHINDE S/O SHRI BALWANT SHINDE
OCCUPATION: R/O POST VILL.GHAT NANDRE,
6.
POST OFFICE KOTE MANKA, DISTT.SANGALI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRESS EXPRESS, LOGICS PRIVATE LTD. THR.
RANJIT PATEL, BEDAG TAL, POST MIRAJ
OCCUPATION: DISTT. SANGALI, THR. POWER OF
7. ATTORNEY HOLDER & MANAGER, PRESS
EXPRESS TRANSPORT COMPANY DILIP MANVI
S/O HARI MANVI, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O
MALANPUR, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. B.D. VERMA AND MR. KRIPAL BATHAM - ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 - CLAIMANTS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall govern the disposal of appeals M.A. Nos. 548
of 2008, 549 of 2008 and 550 of 2008 arising out of the same award.
Present miscellaneous appeals are filed assailing the award dated
05.2.2008 passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Fast Track Court), Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) whereby the claim
applications No. 47/2006, 48/2006 and 52/2006 under Section 166 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
Motor Vehicles Act filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 - claimants were partly
allowed in respect to death of deceased persons Shobhit, Harish Kr. Ahuja
and Sunita Ahuja in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.12.2003
involving truck bearing registration No. MH10 A 9513 being driven by
respondent No 6. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was in the
ownership of respondent No. 7 and was insured with appellant - Insurance
Company.
2. Respondents No. 6 - Driver and No. 7 - Owner of the offending
vehicle remained absent before learned claims tribunal and were proceeded
ex-parte.
3. Appellant - Insurance Company filed its written statement and
denied the averments made in the claim application and stated that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Santro car by
deceased Harish Kr. Ahuja in which rest of the deceased persons were
travelling with him. It is further stated that at the time of accident,
offending vehicle was being plied in violation of policy terms and
conditions, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
4. Learned claims tribunal framed issues and after hearing both the
parties on merits and recording the evidence adduced before it partly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
allowed the claim petition of respondents No. 1 to 5 - claimants and
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- for death of deceased
Shobhit, Rs.14,39,700/- for death of deceased Harish Ahuja and
Rs.9,82,500/- for death of deceased Sunita Ahuja along with interest at the
rate of 7.50% per annum, which was directed to be paid by respondents
No. 6 and 7 as well as by the appellant - insurance company jointly and
severely.
5. I.A. Nos. 3714 of 2023 (in M.A. No. 549 of 2008), 3715 of 2023
(in M.A. No. 550 of 2008) and 3716 of 2023 (in M.A. No. 548 of 2008),
applications under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC has been
filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 - claimants for taking annexed documents
on record as additional evidence.
6. Learned counsel for appellant - insurance company vehemently
opposed the aforesaid interim applications and prayed for its rejection.
7. The perusal of record reveals that both the parties have adduced
evidence in respect to the fact whether claimant No. 3 Saurabh and
deceased Shobhit were adopted son of deceased Harish Kr. Ahuja.
Claimants have failed to assign any reason as to why the documents
annexed with the application could not be filed before learned claims
tribunal or after due diligence, the documents could not be filed. Under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
these circumstances, there is no reason to allow I.A. Nos. 3714 of 2023,
3715 of 2023 and 3716 of 2023 and the same are hereby dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company argued that
impugned award passed by learned claims tribunal is contrary to the settled
principle of law and is also against the facts and circumstances of the case.
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Santro car by
deceased Harish Ahuja, in which deceased Sunita and Shobhit were also
travelling. At the time of accident, deceased Harish Ahuja was drunk,
which is evident from the statement of Dr. Puranlal Gupta but learned
claims tribunal erred in not considering the aforesaid fact and erred in
awarding compensation ignoring the fact of contributory negligence. It is
further argued that respondent No. 3 - claimant Saurabh was adopted son
of deceased Harish Ahuja and Sunita has not been proved by any adoption
deed, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation. The adoption of
deceased Shobhit was also not proved by cogent evidence. Aforesaid legal
aspect was totally ignored by learned claims tribunal. Learned claims
tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased Sunita Ahuja on the
higher side. Hence, prayed to allow this miscellaneous appeal and set aside
the impugned award.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 -
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
claimants opposed the appeal and by filing cross-objections vide I.A. Nos.
830 of 2015 (in M.A. No. 548 of 2008), 829 of 2015 (in M.A. No. 549 of
2008) and 828 of 2015 (in M.A. No. 550 of 2008) prayed for enhancement
of the compensation on the ground that learned claims tribunal has
wrongly assessed the income of deceased Harish and Sunita on the lesser
side and the compensation awarded for death of deceased Shobhit is also
meager. Learned claims tribunal has also not awarded any compensation
under the heads of "loss of love and affection" and "future prospects" and
also awarded less compensation under the head of "loss of estate". Hence,
prayed that the compensation amount be enhanced.
10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
11. The claimants have examined Megha Ahuja, Mulkraj Ahuja and
Satish Chandra Ahuja as A.W. 1 to 3 respectively. On the other hand
insurance company has examined driver of the offending truck Vijay
Shinde as D.W. 1.
12. All the witnesses examined by the claimants have supported the
averments made in the claim petition that at the time of accident, driver of
truck bearing registration No. MH10 A 9513 was driving it in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed into the Santro car in which deceased were
travelling. Nothing emerged in their cross-examination which may raise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
doubt over their statements. Their statements are also supported by
documentary evidence adduced by the claimants which are relevant
documents of charge-sheet filed against the driver of offending vehicle
arising out of this accident.
13. Insurance company has examined Vijay Shinde who was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of accident. According to this witness, it was
the driver of Santro car No. MP08 G 6055 who drove his car in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed into his truck. However, the driver of
offending vehicle Vijay Shinde though arrayed as the respondent, has not
filed written statement and, therefore, his evidence has no weight as no
amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put
forward in the pleadings.
14. The record also reveals that driver of the offending vehicle Vijay
Shinde had never complained before any senior police authority for
registration of criminal case arising out of this accident. Thus learned
tribunal has not erred in discarding his oral evidence.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company argued that
at the time of accident deceased Harish Ahuja, who was driving the Santro
car, was drunk as is evident from the statement of Dr. Puranlal Gupta
(A.W. 5), and therefore, the accident was the result of contributory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
negligence. However, the perusal of evidence of this witness (Dr. Puranlal
Gupta) reveals that he has not supported the version of the insurance
company that at the time of accident, alcohol was found in the stomach of
the deceased. Consequently, there is no reason to disbelieve the cogent
and reliable statements of witnesses of the claimants that the accident
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the
offending vehicle and it was not the result of contributory negligence of
deceased Harish Ahuja.
16. Now the question is whether deceased Shobhit and respondent No. 3
- Saurabh were adopted son of deceased Harish Kr. Ahuja ?
17. As per the case of the claimants, Harish Kr. Ahuja, Smt. Sunita and
their adopted son Shobhit died in this accident. Respondent No. 3 -
claimant Saurabh Ahuja is also the adopted son of Harish. Claimant Megha
Ahuja (A.W. 1) has stated in her court-statement that Shobhit @ Chirag is
her younger brother. Mulkraj Ahuja (A.W. 2) has also supported the
version of Megha and stated that Harish Kr. Ahuja was his son, Sunita was
daughter-in-law and deceased Shobhit was the adopted son of Harish Kr.
Ahuja. The documents filed by the claimants which are the part of charge-
sheet i.e. Information of Unnatural Death (Ex.P-1), Merg (Ex.P-2 and P-3),
Postmortem Report (Ex.P-4) and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-8) reveal that in these
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
documents Harish Kr. Ahuja is shown as father of deceased Shobhit. These
documents were prepared just after the accident and therefore, they can not
be deemed to be prepared as a result of afterthought.
18. Insurance company has not adduced any evidence to contradict the
above fact, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral as well as
documentary evidence to the effect that deceased Shobhit @ Chirag was
the adopted son of Harish.
19. As per the pleadings and evidence adduced by the claimants,
claimant No.-3 Saurabh is also the adopted son of Harish and, therefore, is
entitled for compensation. However, no documentary evidence like Mark-
Sheets, Adoption Deed, Ration Card etc. have been produced to prove the
above fact. Mulkraj Ahuja the grand father of Saurabh, who was examined
as AW-2 has failed to tell the name of father and mother recorded in school
certificates of Saurabh. Claimant witness Satish Chandra Ahuja in his
statement has said that a document of Godnama was executed for the
adoption of Saurabh by Harish Ahuja. However, the said Godnama has not
been filed to prove this fact. Therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn
against the claimants. In the light of above discussion, it is found that
learned tribunal has erred in holding that Respondent No. 3 - claimant
Saurabh was adopted son of deceased Harish Ahuja and Sunita. Thus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
Saurabh is not entitled to get compensation on account of death of Harish,
Sunita and Shobhit in this motor accident.
Quantum of Compensation
In M.A. No. 548 of 2008
20. To decide the quantum of compensation, the income of deceased
Harish is relevant. Learned claims tribunal has rightly held the income of
deceased Harish as Rs.1,65,600/- per annum. There is no dispute in regard
to age of deceased as 46 years at the time of accident. In view of the above
and in the light of case law of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.; 2017 ACJ 2700 as well as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104, considering the
annual income of the deceased to be Rs.1,65,600/-, multiplier of 13
deceased being the age group of 46-50 years, Dependency 3/4 th looking to
the number of dependents between 4 to 6 (though respondents No. 4 and 5
died during the pendency of this appeal, however, as they were alive at the
time of claim petition, therefore, they would be considered as dependents),
future prospect @ 30% and Rs.70,000/- in other heads, total compensation
amount comes to Rs.21,68,980/- [1,24,200 (165600 x 3/4) + 37,260/- (30%
future prospect on 1,24,200/-) = 1,61,460 x 13 + 70000/-]. The tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.14,39,700/- to the claimants. The enhanced amount
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
comes to Rs.7,29,280/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Eighty Only). The enhanced amount of compensation
i.e. Rs.7,29,280/- shall carry interest as awarded by learned claims tribunal
from the date of claim application till realization and shall be payable to
respondents No. 1 and 2 - claimants within a period of 12 weeks from the
date of production of certified copy of this order. Rest of the award passed
by learned claims tribunal shall remain intact.
In M.A. No. 549 of 2008
21. The income of deceased Sunita as Rs.97,800/- per annum in also
rightly held in view of the evidence adduced by the claimants. There is no
dispute in regard to age of deceased as 41 years at the time of accident. In
the light of case law of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.; 2017 ACJ 2700 as well as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104, considering the
annual income of the deceased to be Rs.97,800/-, multiplier of 14 deceased
being the age group of 41-45 years, Dependency 2/3 rd looking to two
number of dependents, future prospect @ 25% and Rs.70,000/- in other
heads, total compensation amount comes to Rs.12,11,000/- [65,200 (97800
x 2/3) + 16,300/- (25% future prospect on 65,200/-) = 81500 x 14 +
70000/-]. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,82,500/- to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
claimants. The enhanced amount comes to Rs.2,28,500/- (Rupees Two
Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Only). The enhanced
amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,28,500/- shall carry interest as awarded
by learned claims tribunal from the date of claim application till realization
and shall be payable to respondents No. 1 and 2 - claimants within a period
of 12 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Rest of the award passed by learned claims tribunal shall remain intact.
In M.A. No. 550 of 2008
22. Learned claims tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,80,000/- for death of deceased child Shobhit aged around 8 years
which according to the opinion of this Court is on the lesser side and
Rs.3,00,000/- is found to be just and proper compensation looking to the
nature of the case.
23. As such, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only). The enhanced amount of
compensation i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- shall carry interest as awarded by learned
claims tribunal from the date of claim application till realization and shall
be payable to respondents No. 1 and 2 - claimants within a period of 12
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Rest of
the award passed by learned claims tribunal shall remain intact.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
24. Respondents No. 1 and 2 - claimants shall deposit requisite Court
fee if required as per law within four weeks' from today and proof thereof
shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, Registry shall issue the
certified copy of the order passed today.
25. Cross-objections ( I.A. Nos. 828 of 2015, 829 of 2015 and 830 of
2015) filed by the claimants stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and
present miscellaneous appeals stand dismissed accordingly.
A copy of this order be kept in connected M.A. Nos. 549 of 2008
and 550 of 2008.
(SUNITA YADAV)
AKS JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
10:22:16 AM
