Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Lal Bahadur Patel on 23 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 4494 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. ITS
LEGAL OFFICER C/O RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED IIIRD FLOOR AHUJA TOWER 46
NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. R.C. TIWARI S/O GANESH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT
67 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 67 SHAKTI NAGAR JAIN
MANDIR JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. OMPRAKASH THAKUR S/O FOOLCHAND THAKUR
OCCUPATION: DRIVER VILL. AND THANA
TILWARAGHAT DISTT. JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. LAKSHMI REDDY LOKA S/O GANGA REDDY R/O
H. NO. 2-35 VANVEL K, NIZAMABAD (M) 503001
ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI D.S. THAKUR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1)
MISC. APPEAL No. 4496 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. ITS
LEGAL OFFICER C/O RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED IIIRD FLOOR AHUJA TOWER 46
Signature Not Verified
SAN NAPIER JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. LAL BAHADUR PATEL S/O LATE DEVNARAYAN
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SUSHEELA DEVI W/O SHRI LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEEPAK KUMAR PATEL S/O LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KRISHNA KUMAR PATEL S/O LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. LOKA LAKSHMI REDDY S/O GANGA REDDY H.NO.
2-35 NANDIPET MANDLAM VANVEL KHURD
NIZAMABAD ANDHARA PRADESH (TELANGANA)
6. I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
C O . L T D . ICICI LOMBAD HOUSE 414
VEERSAVARKAR MARG NEAR SIDDHIVINAYAK
MANDIR PRABHA DEVI MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI UDAY KUMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4)
(SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.
6)
MISC. APPEAL No. 4937 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
R.C. TIWARI S/O G.P. TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R67 SHAKTI NAGAR NEAR JAIN MANDIR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.S. THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
AND
SAN
1. OM PRAKASH THAKUR S/O PHOOLCHAND
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST THAKUR OCCUPATION: DRIVER JODHPUR NEAR
PADHAV CENAL TILWARA GHAT P.S. BARGI
3
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAXMI REDDY LOKA S/O GANGA REDDY R/O H,
NO 35 VANVEL NEAR NIZAMABAD (ANDHRA
PRADESH)
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMOPANY
LTD . BALAJI BHAWAN H.N 1. 1 329 R.D. KILOR
NIZAMABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
MISC. APPEAL No. 671 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. LAL BAHADUR PATEL S/O LATE DEV NARAYAN
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
POST LAKODA P.S. KAMARGEE DISTT. SIDHI
PRESENTLY H.NO. 1988-02/05 RAMPUR CHHAPAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SUSHEELA DEVI W/O SHRI LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILLAGE AND
POST LAKODA PS KAMARGEE DISTT. SIDHI
PERSENTLY H.NO. 1988-02/5 RAMPUR CHHAPAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEEPAK KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, VILLAGE AND
POST LAKODA PS KAMARGEE DISTT. SIDHI
PERSENTLY H.NO. 1988-02/5 RAMPUR CHHAPAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KRISHAN KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI LAL BAHADUR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, VILLAGE AND
POST LAKODA PS KAMARGEE DISTT. SIDHI
PERSENTLY H.NO. 1988-02/5 RAMPUR CHHAPAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI UDAY KUMAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
SAN
1. OM PRAKASH S/O PHOOL CHAND SINGH
THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST JHODHPUR PADAO TILWARA GHAT THANA
BARGI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4
2. LOKA LAXMI REDDY S/O LOKA GANGA REDDY
HOUSE NO. 2-35 NANDIPET MANDALAM VANVEL
KHURD VANVEL OF NIJAMABAD (TELANGANA)
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIM ITED HOUSE NO. 1-1-329 SECOND THIRD
FLOOR KALKA DEVI KAMMAN VINAYAK NAGER
NIJAMABAD (TELANGANA)
4. MRS. KIRAN TIWARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
SHRI R.C TIWARI W/O MRS. KIRAN TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 861 PLOT NO.
65 SAKTI NAGAER NEAR JAIN MANDIR
GUPTESWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD. HOUSE NO. 414 VEER SAWARKAR MARG
NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAK MANDIR PRABHA DEVI
MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3)
(SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.
5)
These appeals coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
These appeals are filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated
26/07/2018 passed by the learned VII Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in M.V.C. Nos. 587/2015 and 586/2015 whereby the learned Tribunal
treating the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month has
awarded the compensation which according to the claimants/appellants is
inadequate.
I t is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No.
671/2019 that deficit Court Fees is paid by him. A copy of deposit receipts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
are filed vide I.D. Nos. 47718/2023 and 49265/2023, therefore, prays for taking
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
the Court fees on record and he may be permitted to amend the valuation
accordingly.
Considering the aforesaid, deficit Court fees is taken on record and
appellants are permitted to amend the valuation.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court of India in
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Deo Patodi and others (2009)
II ACC 875 so also on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna
in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devaki Paswan and others
2014 ACJ 1101 and that of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gurnam Singh and others 2014
ACJ 554 whereas the Insurance Company has filed their appeals M.A. Nos.
4496/2018 and 4494/2018 alleging that the accident took place with Harvester
and Harvester being used for commercial purpose having been brought from
outside the state, the Insurance Company should be exonerated as Harvester
was insured for agriculture purposes.
It is also submitted that there is an aspect of contributory negligence
which is overlooked by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is further submitted that
in one of the cases namely claim case no. 587/2015, award is passed in favour
of father of the deceased whereas father is not a class-I legal heir.
Before adverting to the merits of the claims for enhancement wherein two
fold argument has been put forth namely consideration of income on a lower
side and that there cannot be any deduction towards personal and living
expenses in a case because deceased was not having any personal income,
indulgence is sought.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Insurance Company did not lead any evidence in regard to factum of
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
contributory negligence. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company take all
those grounds in the appeal which are not taken in the first instance and if taken
but for which no evidence is led reflects poor state of defence before the
learned Claims Tribunal.
As far as ground of commercial use is concerned, one Shri Amit Singh
Handa, Law Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Napier
Town, Jabalpur was examined who admitted in his cross-examination that
Harvester was used only for agricultural purposes. He further admitted that
there is no need for any fitness or permit to use the Harvester.
Similarly, there is no material on record to show that Harvester was being
used in violation of any of the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as
Harvester is used for Agricultural purpose. It does not make mention that if the
use of Harvester is made on it being deployed for agriculture purpose but after
charging some amount for services, then it will not be covered under the terms
and conditions of the policy.
No violation of any of the terms and conditions of the policy could be
proved by Shri Handa appearing for the Insurance Company and, thus in the
absence of any proof of violation of any terms and conditions of the policy, the
grounds raised by the Insurance Company are not made out and, therefore, the
appeals filed by them deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed especially
when Shri Handa has also admitted in para 9 that fitness and permit are
mandatory for a commercial vehicle and in the policy D-1, neither it is
mentioned that policy is for a commercial vehicle or for a private vehicle.
Thus, the grounds raised by the Insurance Company having been not
Signature Not Verified
SAN
made out, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to cause
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
interference on the grounds raised by the Insurance Company, therefore, the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company fails and are dismissed.
As far as appeal of the claimants is concerned, in the case of Deo Patodi
(supra), the deceased was a Graduate in Business Administration in U.K., even
as a student in part-time job, he was getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month
and was income tax payee even in U.K. On return back to India, he was
offered job as E.U. Controller by GOA LLC, a company based in Chicago,
USA at an annual salary of Rs. 18,00,000/- which he had rejected and,
thereafter, the Supreme Court applied 1/3 rd deduction towards the personal
expenses and applied multiplier of 10 as per the age of mother and father of the
deceased.
This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of subsequent
judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 cannot be applied,
inasmuch as deductions are to be made in terms of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) i.e. 1/2 in case of Bachelor, 1/3
for dependents upto three and so on. The multiplier is also to be applied as per
the age of the deceased and not as per the age of the parents. Even otherwise,
the deceased in that case was a degree holder and was having a job offered in
India but overlooking the job offer and salary drawn by him in U.K. on the
basis of his completed qualification, income of Rs. 18,000/- was considered per
month.
In the case of Gurnam Singh (supra) and Devaki Paswan (supra), the
facts are distinguishable on their own facts. However, recently, in a case
Signature Not Verified
SAN
originated from the High Court of M.P. in an accident which took place in 2012
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
whereas in the present case, the accident took place on 4/04/2013 has dealt with
the controversy where M.P. High Court at Gwalior Bench in case of Meena
Pawaia and others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others M.A. No. 1319/2016 had
considered income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- and had reduced the award
of compensation from Rs. 12,85,000/- to 6,10,000/- in an appeal preferred by
the Union of India/Railways where the deceased was a Bachelor aged 21 years
and was studying in three years of B.E. course raised a plea before the Supreme
Court in a matter reported in 2021 SCConline SC 1083. Looking to the
educational qualification, he was having assessed income at Rs. 10,000/- per
month more particularly considering the fact that the labourers/skilled labourers
were getting Rs. 5,000/- per month even under the Minimum Wages Act and
then calculated the compensation after adding 40% towards future prospects
and after making 50% deduction awarded a sum of Rs. 15,82,000/-.
When same principle is applied, looking to the fact that deceased Sunil
Kumar Patel was a student of Engineering in VIth Semester and similarly,
deceased Sai Ratna Tiwari was also studying at Australia following the ratio of
judgment of Supreme Court in Meena Pawaia (supra), Sai Kiran was aged
about 26 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable.
Thus, claimant in M.A. No. 4937/2018 (MVC No. 587/2015) will be
entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,58,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs fifty eight
thousand only) in place of Rs. 7,44,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs forty four
thousand only) awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
Thus, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 7,14,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs fourteen thousand only) to which claimant will be entitled to.
Signature Not Verified
As far as plea of the Insurance Company that father could not have been
SAN
granted compensation, it is evident that initially claim was filed by the mother
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
and father of deceased Sai Kiran Tiwari and on death of mother, father
remained as a claimant both in his individual capacity and legal heir of Sai Kiran
Tiwari, therefore, this objection taken by the Insurance Company is not
sustainable and is hereby rejected.
Similarly, in claim case no. 586/2013 M.A. No. 671/2019, claimants will
be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,82,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs eighty two
thousand only) in place of Rs. 7,86,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs eighty six
thousand only).
Thus, they will be entitled to an enhancement to the tune of Rs.
7.96,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs ninety six thousand only).
Let total amounts remain invested in the monthly income scheme of the
Indian postoffice or/and Nationalized Bank for a period of ten years, out of
which claimants will be entitled to draw monthly interest for their expenses but
shall not touch the principle amount as the compensation is awarded on a
premise that adult son had taken care of their parents in their old age.
In above terms, the appeals filed by the claimants are disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
vy
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.02.27 20:07:57 IST
