Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Mamta Rani on 14 February, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 217 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MAMTARANI W/O LATE SHRI
DOULAT PATEL, AGED ABOUT
44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
R/O VILLAGE BARPANI POLICE
STATION SANOUDHA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARISHANKAR PATEL S/O LATE
SHRI DOULAT PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARPANI POLICE STATION
SANOUDHA, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDRAWATI PATEL D/O
LATE SHRI DOULAT PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI POLICE
STATION SANOUDHA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEEPCHAND PATEL S/O LATE
SHRI DOULAT PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NILL R/O VILLAGE BARPANI
POLICE STATION SANOUDHA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR,
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MALTI PATEL D/O LATE SHRI
DOULAT PATEL, AGED ABOUT
18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL
R/O VILLAGE BARPANI POLICE
2
STATION SANOUDHA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PREMRANI W/O LATE SHRI
KANAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 69
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI POLICE
STATION SANOUDHA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUKESH YADAV S/O SHRI
RAMKISHAN YADAV
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE
SILERA P.S. NARYAWALI,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR,
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHESH YADAV S/O SHRI
CHHOTELAL YADAV R/O
VILLAGE SILERA P.S.
NARYAWALI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
THROUGH REGIONAL
MANAGER ANMOL ESTATE
BUILDING BAIKUNTH DHAM
COLONY KHAJRANA ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. SURAJ PATEL D/O LATE
SHRI DOULAT PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARPANI POLICE STATION
SANOUDHA, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. NANDLAL PATEL S/O LATE SHRI
3
KANAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI POLICE
STATION SANOUDHA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DAMODAR PATEL S/O LATE
SHRI KANAI PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARPANI POLICE STATION
SANOUDHA, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED)
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI T.S.LAMBA - ADVOCATE)
MISC. APPEAL No. 3387 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. REGIONAL MANAGER
ANMOL STAGE BUILDING ,
BAIKUNTH DHAM COLONY,
KHAJRANA ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI T.S.LAMBA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MAMTA RANI W/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA, TAH.
AND DISTT. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARISHANKARA PATEL S/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
4
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDRAWATI PATEL D/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEEPCHAND PATEL S/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MINOR THR.
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT.
MAMTARANI PATEL W/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KU. SURAJ PATEL D/O LATE
DAULAT PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MINOR THR.
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT.
MAMTARANI PATEL W/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KU. MALTI PATEL D/O LATE
DAULAT PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 12 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MINOR THR.
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT.
MAMTARANI PATEL W/O
LATE DAULAT PATEL R/O
5
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. PREMRANI W/O LATE
KANAI PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. NANDLAL PATEL S/O LATE
KANAI PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. DAMODAR PATEL S/O LATE
KANAI PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BARPANI, POLICE
STATION SANODHA TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. MUKESH YADAV S/O
RAMKISHAN YADAV R/O
VILLAGE SILERA,
P.S.NARYAWALI TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. MAHESH YADAV S/O
CHHOTELAL YADAV R/O
VILLAGE SILERA,
P.S.NARYAWALI TAHSIL
AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1, 4, 5, 6 7 BY SHRI RAJENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)
6
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.398/2022, an application under section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
The appeal is barred by 931 days. The reason assigned by the
appellants is that because of poor financial condition they could not file
the appeal. After the connected appeal was filed by the Insurance
Company and 50% of the amount was deposited in compliance of the
order dated 20.8.2020 in M.A.No.3387/2019, the compensation amount
was disbursed in favour of claimants Mamtarani, Deepchand, Malti and
Premrani. Since respondent no.4 Suraj Patel was not present, therefore,
her share was not released. After receiving the compensation amount, the
appellants have filed the appeal. Since they were poor, therefore, they
could not file appeal within stipulated period. It is further submitted that
since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is also pending
consideration therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
the respondent/Insurance Company.
Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is already pending
and a litigant cannot be made to suffer because of his poor financial
condition, therefore, the delay of 913 days in filing this appeal is hereby
condoned.
The record of the Claims Tribunal has been received in connected
M.A.No.3387/2019.
1. By this common order, M.A.No.3387/2019 filed by the Insurance Company
shall also be decided.
2. Both the Misc. Appeals have been filed under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27.3.2019 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.149/2018.
3. M.A.No.217/2022 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of
compensation amount whereas M.A.No.3387/2019 has been filed by the
Insurance Company seeking exoneration on the ground that the offending
vehicle was falsely implanted after 41 days of the accident.
4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals in short are that on
16.12.2017 at about 7 AM the driver of the offending vehicle bearing
registration No.MP15 MG 3760 by driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner dashed the injured Daulat Patel. The injured was
admitted in Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar. As the injured had
suffered multiple injuries, therefore, looking to the grievousness of the
injuries sustained by him, he was referred to the Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.
During the treatment he died on 3.1.2018 in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. An
information was sent to the police regarding the death of the deceased. The
witnesses were summoned by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly on
27.1.2018 an FIR was lodged in which the number of the offending vehicle
was specifically mentioned. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award
has allowed the Claim Petition and has awarded Rs.7,62,300/-.
M.A.No.217/2022.
5. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal it is submitted by
counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount
under the head of Consortium. The appellants as well as respondents no.4
to 6 had filed a claim petition and it was held by the Claims Tribunal that
appellant no.2 Harishankar and appellant no.3 Chandrawati cannot be
treated as dependents as are major son and daughter of the deceased. But,
by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Birendra and another decided on 13.1.2020
in C.A.No.244/2020, it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that even
the major son has to be treated as legal heir of the deceased and, therefore,
the Claims Tribunal should have awarded consortium to all the
claimants/appellants as well as respondents no.4 to 6.
6. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for the Insurance Company that since
respondents no.5 and 6 are the brothers of the deceased, therefore, they
have not been treated as dependent of the deceased and accordingly they are
not entitled for consortium separately.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased
towards consortium whereas no compensation has been awarded to
appellants no.2 to 6 as well as respondent no.4. The Supreme Court in the
case of Birendra (supra) has held that even a major son has to be treated as
legal heir and accordingly this Court is of the considered opinion that all the
children of the deceased are also entitled for consortium. Accordingly,
appellants no.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and respondent no.4 are also held to be entitled
for consortium. Thus, the compensation amount is enhanced by a further
amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, i.e. Rs.40,000 x 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-. The other
conditions of the award shall remain the same.
9. Appeal filed by the claimants viz. M.A.No.217/2022 is hereby allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
M.A.No.3387/2019
10.Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by
Shri Lamba that since the accident took place on 16.12.2017 and the FIR
was lodged on 27.1.2018, i.e. after 41 days of the accident, therefore, it is
clear that the offending vehicle was falsely implanted in order to claim
compensation from the said vehicle.
11.Considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant.
12.The accident took place on 16.12.2017. The deceased was immediately
hospitalized in Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar. Thereafter, he was
shifted to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where he died on 3.1.2018. Thereafter,
the legal heirs of the deceased must be busy in performing last rites of the
deceased and the 13th day ceremony must have been performed on
16.1.2018. From the FIR, Ex.P/2 it is clear that the witnesses were
summoned by the Enquiry Officer on 27.1.2018 and their statements were
recorded and immediately thereafter the FIR in question was lodged.
13.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the fact that the deceased remained hospitalized for a period of 19 days
and the LRs of the deceased must be busy in looking after the deceased in
Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, it cannot be said that the offending vehicle was
involved after due deliberation.
14.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court
is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that
the accident was caused by the offending vehicle bearing registration
No.MP15 MG 3760. Therefore, the Insurance Company as well as
respondents no.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending
vehicle have been rightly held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount.
15.Accordingly, the award dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Sagar in M.A.C.C.No.149/2018 is modified. The
appeal filed by the Insurance Company (M.A.No.3387/2019) is hereby
dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2023.02.16 17:45:02 +05'30'
HS
