Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manjubai vs Sardarsingh on 13 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 2520 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MANJUBAI W/O GHANCHAND KHANDE, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
KADAWALIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAKTI S/O GHANCHAND KHANDE, AGED ABOUT
17 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT KANAWALIA
TEHSIL BADWAH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AKASH S/O GHYANCHAND KHANDE, AGED
ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
KADAWALIYA TEHSIL BADWAH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ATUL S/O GHANCHAND KHANDE, AGED ABOUT 12
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT KADAWALIYA
TEHSIL BADWAH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KESHARBAI W/O GABRU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KADAWALIYA TEHSIL BADWAH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(MS. MINU RAJPAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
1. SARDARSINGH S/O JIWANSINGH MORYA, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, PATEL MOHALLA BOYKHEDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. RITU W/O MANISH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, STATION ROAD, BARWAHA KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICER KHANDWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 14-12-2023
18:23:00
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.3)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal by the claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act is arising out of the award dated 10.02.2020 passed by Member MACT,
Khandwa in Claim Case No.224/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in
dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in
question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of Gyanchand the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,86,250/- along with
interest. The breakup of the compensation amount is as under:
Income/dependency Rs.90,000/- x 3/4 x 15= Rs.
10,12,500/-
Future Prospects @ 30% Rs.3,03,750/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total Amount Rs.13,86,250/-
3 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in
the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further
submits that the Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding
compensation under the head of filial consortium to all the dependents in the
light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & others reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130. The Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding meager amount
under the head of loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi -
(2017) 16 SCC 680 which is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. The
deceased was a labourer and was earning Rs.400/- per day, therefore, the
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month. The
Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages fixed by the Govt. Hence, prays for just and proper amount of
compensation in the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for
any interference by this Court.
5 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
appellants. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding meager amount
under the head of loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation under the head of filial consortium. The Apex Court in the
case of Nanu Ram (supra) has held that "consortium" is a compendious term
which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium" and "filial
consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased which is a loss to his
family. The minimum wages of labour at the time of accident is Rs.9,560/- per
month. Considering the evidence that came on record, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the compensation amount is on the lower side which
deserves to be enhanced.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments made
by the counsel for the appellants and the evidence that came on record, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
deserves to be enhanced as under:
Income/dependency Rs.1,14,720/- x 3/4 x 15= Rs.
12,90,600/-
Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.4,05,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Filial Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Amount Rs.19,25,600/-
7. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case
i s Rs.19,25,600/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.13,86,250/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.5,39,350/-
over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
8 . In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.5,39,350/-. The enhanced amount shall
bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings
recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
9. The appellants have valued the appeal only to the extent of
Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the Court fee accordingly, however, for the remaining
amount of Rs.4,39,350/- the Court fee shall be paid by the appellants within a
period of one month and thereafter the amount shall be released by the
Insurance Company on receiving the certificate. In case the certificate has not
been filed before the Insurance Company up to a period of three months, the
claimants shall not be entitled to receive the interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and to the extent indicated
herein above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
RJ
