Branch Manager The New India ... vs Rajkumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 13917 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 24 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              MISC. APPEAL No. 25 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
                           LTD., JABALPUR CITY BRANCH 668 1ST FLOOR RASEL
                           CHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR THROUGH ITS
                           DEPUTY MANAGER B.K. MENON S/O P.R. MENON AGE
                           56 YRS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. T.P. HUB
                           NAPIER TOWN JABALUR JABALPUR CITY BRANCH 668
                           1 ST FLOOR RASAL CHOWK NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI SOM PRAKASH MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    RAJKUMAR S/O KOSHA DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT
                                 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CAST- MANJHI VILLAGE
                                 SANGAMTOLA       MANJHIYAKHAR      CHOWKI
                                 GADASARAI P.S. BAJAK (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SURESH S/O RAJKUMAR DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT
                                 25    YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILLAGE    SANGAMTOLA    MANJHIYAKHAR
                                 CHOWKI GADASARAI PS BAJAK (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    ANITA BAI D/O RAJKUMAR DHIMAR, AGED
                                 ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILLAGE     SANGAMTOLA      MANJHIYAKHAR
                                 CHOWKI GADASARAI PS BAJAK (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    VIJAY S/O RAJKUMAR DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 18
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 SANGAMTOLA      MANJHIYAKHAR     CHOWKI
                                 GADASARAI PS BAJAK (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    AMAR SINGH MARKAM S/O JODHA SINGH
                                 MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 25-08-2023
11:12:25
                                                        2
                                 SURSATOLA POLICE CHOWKI GADASARAI PS
                                 BAJAK TEHSIL BAJAK (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    DEVENDRA SINGH DHUMKETI S/O T S
                                 DHUMKETI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILLAGE
                                 KEESALPURI TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI GHANSHYAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1
                           TO 4)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 07/11/2016 passed by Member, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Dindori in Claim Case No.213/2015.

2. This appeal is filed on two grounds, namely; accident took place with thresher attached to the tractor, therefore, thresher being not insured, insurance company could not have been fastened with any liability. Second ground is that under the head of non-pecuniary compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of parental consortium. Thus, it is submitted that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been awarded which is in excessive.

3. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn, submits that accident admittedly took place on 01/05/2014. Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month whereas minimum wages on the said date was to the tune of Rs.5,845/- per month. Age of the decease has come on record to be 41 to 45 years, therefore, 25% would have been added towards the future prospects and when all these aspects are taken

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-08-2023 11:12:25

into consideration, then there would have enhancement of about Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, it is submitted that though heads of non-pecuniary compensation may be inappropriate but when principles of award of just compensation are applied, then overall compensation cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, sub-section (44) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines that a tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller. Thus, equipment used for the purpose of propulsion which includes thresher is part of the tractor only. Therefore, first ground is not made out. If insurance was given for tractor, then it includes equipment used for the purpose of propulsion.

5. As far as second grounds is concerned, it is true that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount under non-pecuniary heads but when they are balanced in light of the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment to award just compensation with the minimum wages, eligibility for future prospects etc., then overall amount cannot be said to be excessive

6. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-08-2023 11:12:25