Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Neeraj Dhanuk vs Saleem on 2 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 502 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. NEERAJ DHANUK W/O LATE
MADANLAL DHANUK, AGE - 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE.
2. KALU DHANUK S/O LATE SHRI MADANLAL
DHANUK, AGE 6 YEARS.
3. RAHUL S/O LATE MADANLAL DHANUK, AGE
3 YEARS.
4. KU.BHAWNA DHANUK D/O LATE MADANLAL
DHANUK, AGE 1 YEAR.
NO.2 TO 4 MINOR UNDER GUARDIANSHIP
OF MOTHER SMT. NEERAJ DHANUK.
5. SMT.JHANNOBAI W/O SHRI BABULAL
DHANUK, AGE 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION :
NONE.
6. BABULAL DHANUK S/O LATE PANCHHI
DHANUK, AGE 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NONE.
ALL R/O GRAM JAKHODA, GHATIGAON,
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SATISH S/O SHRI MAHENDRA TOMAR
OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O BAHADRABAD
THANA JYOLAPUR DISTRICT HARIDWAR
(UTTARANCHAL) (DRIVER - U.A.-08 H.9286).
2
2. FARAT KHAN S/O SHRI MUNFET KHAN
OCCUPATION: TRUCK OPERATOR, R/O
VADERI RAJPUTAN THANA BAHADRAWAD,
DISTRICT HARIDWAR (OWNER TRUCK NO.
U.A.-08 H/9286).
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, 301-302, CORPORATE HOUSE,
THIRD FLOOR, 169 R.N.T. MARG, IN FRONT
OF JHABUA TOWER, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI NIRENDRA SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3 - INSURANCE COMPANY.
NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2)
This appeal coming on for order this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.5185/2021, an application for amendment in the
cause title.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that due to
typographical mistake in the appeal memo name of respondent No.1 has
been mentioned as - Salim, whereas correct name of respondent No.1 is -
Satish, therefore, he may be permitted to carry out such amendment.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and
appellants' counsel is permitted to carry out the amendment on board.
4. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
b e e n preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) vide common award dated
13.03.2008 passed in Claim Case No.12/2007 and Claim Case
No.11/2007.
5. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in
narrow compass: On 12.01.2007 at about 11.30 A.M. the deceased
Madanlal alongwith his brother Kalu was going on his motorcycle from his
village Jakhoda to Gwalior. When the deceased Madanlal was going on a
valley ahead Raj Hotel, at that time non-applicant No.1 driving the
offending vehicle Truck No.U.A.08 H.9286 rashly and negligently came
and hit the motorcycle, due to which motorcycle got stuck in the truck
and dragged alongwith it and due to which Madanlal suffered injuries and
ultimately died. Applicant Kalu suffered serious injury in his calf and he
also suffered contusions on different parts of body. Information of the
accident was given by applicant Kalu to Police Station Ghatigaon on
which Crime No.09/2007 was registered. Post mortem of deceased
Madanlal was performed at J.A. Hospital and his dead body was given to
his family for funeral, whereas Kalu was taken to J.A.Hospital for
treatment. He was admitted in Orthopedic Department on 12.01.2007.
Hence, Claim Case No.12/2007 was filed before the Claims Tribunal by
claimants/appellants claiming an award of Rs.38,60,000/- as compensation
for the death of Madanlal, whereas injured Kalu Dhanuk filed Claim Case
No.11/2007 claiming an award of Rs.2,62,000/- for the injuries caused to
him.
6 . T he case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced
their part of evidence. In Claim Case No.12/2007 the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased Madanlal as Rs.2500/- per month
and awarded Rs.3,59,500/- as compensation alongwith 7% interest per
annum, break-up of which is as under :-
Loss of Income - Rs. 3,40,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs. 2,500/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 5,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/-
Total - Rs.3,59,500/-
For enhancement of the aforesaid amount of compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case No.12/2007, the appellants/
claimants filed the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Madanlal, appellants No.2 to 4
are children of the deceased, whereas appellants No.5 and 6 are mother
and father of the deceased respectively. The appellants have challenged the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that
income of the deceased is incorrectly assessed by the tribunal. At the time
of accident, the deceased was a young man of 28 years and was doing the
work of stone cutting and selling them to the different traders by which he
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month, which is on lower side.
Learned counsel further submits that at the time of the death, deceased
was aged about 28 years, therefore, appropriate multiplier deserves to be
applied. Tribunal has allowed meager amount of Rs.2,000/- as funeral
expenses, Rs.5000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- loss of estate and
Rs.10,000/- as loss of love and affection and no amount has been
awarded under the head of future prospects. Therefore, under the
aforesaid heads the amount deserves to be enhanced suitably.
8 . Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company
submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper.
He supported the award and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred
by the appellants/claimants is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in
assessing his income as Rs.2,500/- per month and awarding the
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,59,500/-.
10. Heard.
11. Having gone through the impugned award, it is apparent that the
Tribunal has not assessed the income of deceased correctly and therefore,
same needs to be corrected and the amount awarded under other heads is
also on lower side, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced appropriately. Keeping in
view the fact that the deceased was doing the work of stone cutting, the
monthly income of deceased can easily be assessed at Rs.3,500/- per
month and Rs.42,000/- per year and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, minimum 40% should be awarded
under the head of future prospects (Rs.16,800/- per year), thus the total
income comes to Rs.58,800/- and after deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses (Rs.14,700/-) and applying multiplier of 16, total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.7,05,600/- (Rs.44,100/- x 16 = Rs.7,05,600/-).
Besides, the appellants are also entitled for Rs.70,000/- under the various
heads according to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.7,75,600/-
. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,59,500/-. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to
receive the enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,75,600
- Rs.3,59,500/- = Rs.4,16,100/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixteen
Thousand One Hundred only). The enhanced amount of compensation
shall also carry interest @ 7% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, from the
date of application till its realization and shall also be payable to the
claimants/appellants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims
Tribunal while passing impugned award shall remain intact.
With the aforesaid, Misc. Appeal stands disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.02.04
16:21:51 +05'30'
