Smt. Ramnareshi vs Teekaram
2023 Latest Caselaw 14071 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                  ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                   MISC. APPEAL No. 71 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
1.    SMT.   RAMNARESHI     W/O    LATE    SHRI
      CHIRONJILAL,  AGED   ABOUT     30  YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O VILL. RANIPURA
      TEH. SABALGARH DIST. MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    KU. SONAM D/O LATE SHRI CHIRONJILAL, AGED
      ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR U/G MOTHER SMT.
      RAMNARESHI R/O VILLAGE RANIPURA, TEHSIL
      SABALGARH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    ANKESH S/O LATE SHRI CHIRONJILAL, AGED
      ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR U/G MOTHER SMT.
      RAMNARESHI R/O VILLAGE RANIPURA, TEHSIL
      SABALGARH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    KU. SAUMIS D/O SHRI CHROJILAL, AGED ABOUT
      2     YEARS, MINOR    U/G  MOTHER     SMT.
      RAMNARESHI R/O VILLAGE RANIPURA, TEHSIL
      SABALGARH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                   .... APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI G.S.SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    TEEKARAM S/O SHRI SARAVANLAL RAWAT R/O
      ROSANI GHAR ROAD, LASHKAR, GWALIOR,
      DISTRICT GWALIOR PRESENTLY R/O MAA
      SARASWATI    FILLING  STATION  AJAPURA,
      DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SMT. MAMTA W/O SHRI PURAN BANSAL R/O
      SABALGARH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                             2
3.    THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD.
      OFFICE- SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(ESPONDENT NO. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY BY SHRI A.K.AGRAWAL -
ADVOCATE)

      T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Present Misc. Appeal, under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants assailing the award dated 21/11/2015 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No.

72/2013 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation. The accident in question took place on 5/7/2012 in which husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 to 4 sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death.

Appellants/claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 52,50,000/- on account of death of husband of Appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 4 in an accident which took place on 5/7/2012. However, Claims Tribunal has awarded a total copensation of Rs. 5,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application.

As the incident occurred, negligence of driver of driving the offending vehicle, the issue of liability have been decided recording the findings in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal and none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner, driver or insurance company by filing the cross-appeal or the cross-objection, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the

inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed, however the arguments in detail have been considered in succeeding paragraphs.

According to appellants/claimants, the tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas, the deceased was doing a private job in Om Prakash Oil Mill, Sabalgarh and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and also engaged in agricultural activities thereby earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. The claims Tribunal also erred in applying the multiplier of 16 as deceased was 35 years of age and therefore, multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Further, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and Claims Tribunal further erred in not awarding any amount under the head future prospects in light of decision of Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700. Therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced.

The breakup of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is as under:-

Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of care to children and guidance

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

Rs. 5,82,000/- In total

6. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal learned counsel representing the respondent /Insurance Company though argued in support of impugned award however assailed the same on the ground that amount awarded under the head loss of consortium and award of compensation to children under the head loss of care and guidance is also on the higher side.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, income of the deceased is required to be assessed in light of evidence came on record and legal guidance given by Apex Court.

Though appellants have claimed that deceased was working in a private firm namely Om Prakash Oil Mill, Sabalgarh and thereby earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and also earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum from doing agricultural related works; however, in the opinion of this court, in absence of any evidence but looking to the fact that deceased was survived by four members, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 3,500/- per month.

The multiplier of 16 as applied by the Claims Tribunal appears to be just and proper looking to the age of deceased 35 years at the time of incident and the deduction made by Claims Tribunal at 1/3rd towards self expenditure opinion of this Court is also just and proper. Further in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum under the head future prospects and since the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of incident and was engaged in non-permanent job, claimants shall be entitled to receive 40% towards future prospects on behalf of deceased.

Thus by assessing the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 3,500/- month, his yearly income comes to Rs. 42,000/- and after deducting ¼ towards self expenditure, the loss of yearly dependency comes to Rs. 31,500/-, and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the yearly loss comes to Rs. 31,500 12,600/- = 44,100/- and after applying multiplier of 16 as has been applied by Claims Tribunal total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 44,100 x 16 = 705,600/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/- towards

loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in light of decision of Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,05,600 70,000 = 7,75,600/-. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,82,000, therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to receive an enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,75,600 - 5,82,000 = 1,93,600/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July, 2017 when the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) came into force and for rest of the amount the conditions as imposed of Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

In the result, appeal filed by claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE

Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI

JAI PRAKASH 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=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9 e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,

SOLANKI pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D835 7, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433E BD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.08.29 10:29:41 +05'30'