Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Monwati vs Shafeek on 17 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1660 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. MONWATI W/O GULAB SINGH, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS.
2. SMT. GEETA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 23
YEARS.
3. SMT. REKHA W/O BHOORA, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS.
ALL R/O GRAM BAANSKUNWAR, THANA
OBDULLAGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAFEEK S/O RAHMAN R/O KACHCHI MASJID KE
PAAS SHAHJAHANABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KHALID AKIL S/O SHAKIL MOHAMMAD H.NO. 25
MURGI BAZAR STATE GAIREJ KE PASS
JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMP. LTD.
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
PLOT NO.48, ZONE-2, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. HARIBAI W/O LATE CHETRAM MARKAM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
Signature Not Verified
5. SHUMBH S/O LATE CHETRAM, AGED ABOUT 16
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
YEARS.
Date: 2023.02.21 19:48:20 IST
2
6. AKASH S/O LATE CHETRAM, AGED ABOUT 14
YEARS.
7. KANCHAN S/O LATE CHETRAM, AGED ABOUT 12
YEARS.
8. ABHISHEK S/O LATE CHETRAM, AGED ABOUT 10
YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 MINORS THROUGH
THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.
HARIBAI W/O CHETRAM MARKAM.
9. RANJEET S/O CHETRAM, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.
10. SMT. RAMKALI BAI W/O LATE
[email protected], AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 10 R/O GRAM
BAANSKUNWAR, THANA OBDULLAGANJ,
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MOHD. SIDDIQUE - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3-
INSURANCE COMPANY)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.7417/2020, an application for recalling order dated
03.09.2020 on the ground that there was no consent of the Insurance Company
for enhancement to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Accordingly, order dated 03.09.2020 is recalled.
3. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants
submits that this appeal is filed on two grounds, namely, seeking enhancement
of Rs.50,000/- and further a direction to the non applicants to compensate
claimant No.6 Smt. Monwati W/o Gulab Singh, claimant No.7 Smt. Geeta W/o
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Ramesh and claimant No.8 Smt. Rekha W/o Bhoora, as married daughters
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.02.21 19:48:20 IST
cannot be deleted from the array of beneficiaries.
4. Shri Kapil Patwardhan has placed reliance on the decision of the Madras
High Court at Madurai Bench in The Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kaaliathaal and others (C.M.A. (MD)
No.1185 of 2006 and M.P. (MD) Nos.2 of 2006 and 3 of 2007, decided on
01.03.2007), where in para 13 it is held that dependency of the legal
representatives is a fact to be decided in each case and there cannot be any rigid
formula that only dependents alone can claim compensation under Section 163-
A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further held that the Legislature has
not used the word, dependent in the Section, rather it has used the word ''all or
any of the legal representatives''. In the absence of class I heirs, the claimants
being married daughters are not precluded from claiming compensation under
the Act. They are legal representatives, entitled to the estate of the deceased and
therefore entitled to claim compensation, no matter whether they are dependents
or not.
5. As far as enhancement is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants -
claimants submits that only a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of
Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Last Rites, whereas as per the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, this amount should have been Rs.70,000/-
. Thus, case for enhancement to the tune of Rs.40,000/- is straightway made
out.
6. Thus, there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and instead
of Rs.4,52,400/-, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,92,400/- (Rupees
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Four Lakhs Ninety Two Thousands and Four Hundred). To this extent, appeal
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
is allowed.
Date: 2023.02.21 19:48:20 IST
7. However, in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in The
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs.
Kaaliathaal and others (supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned
counsel for the appellants, in para 14 it is held as under:
''14. The Legislature has not used the word, dependent in the
Section, rather it has used the word ''all or any of the legal
representatives''. In the absence of class I heirs, the claimants
being married daughters are not precluded from claiming
compensation under the Act. They are legal representatives,
entitled to the estate of the deceased and therefore entitled to claim
compensation, no matter whether they are dependents or not.''
8. In para 16 of the aforesaid judgment it is held as under :-
''16. Separate living does not deprive them of their right to
claim compensation as legal representative to the loss of estate.
Therefore, I am of the view that married daughters are also entitled
to claim compensation in the absence of other legal heirs and that
the proof of actual dependency is not necessary.''
9. Thus, it is evident that claim is admissible to married daughters only in
absence of class I heirs. It is not the case of the appellants that there are no
class I heirs. Therefore, claim of the married daughters being not class I heirs as
described in schedule appended to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claim of the
appellants to have a share in the amount of compensation is not made out.
Therefore, that cannot be allowed. On that ground, appeal fails and is
dismissed.
10. This enhanced amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) will
be appropriated amongst the claimants in terms of the appropriation made by
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the learned Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount shall earn interest @ 6% per
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.02.21 19:48:20 IST annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
11. In above terms, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.
12. Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.02.21 19:48:20 IST
