Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Sunita Bai on 4 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 1040 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH
: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER OFFICE 495 MARHATAL
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.N.SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SUNITA BAI W/O LATE SHOBHIT MARAVI
VILL AND POST SAKWAH P.S. MADAI TEH
BICHIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. SAVITA D/O LATE SHOBHIT MARAVI, AGED
ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH THE NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. SUNITA BAI VILLAGE AND POST SAKWAH,
P.S. MADAI, TAHSIL BICHIYA, MANDLA, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AMIT KUMAR S/O LATE SHOBHIT MARAVI, AGED
ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH THE NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. SUNITA BAI VILLAGE AND POST SAKWAH,
P.S. MADAI, TAHSIL BICHIYA, MANDLA, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KODU LAL S/O MANSHI MARAVI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST SAKWAH, P.S. MADAI,
TAHSIL BICHIYA, MANDLA, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KUNWARIYA BAI W/O KODU LAL, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST SAKWAH, P.S. MADAI,
TAHSIL BICHIYA, MANDLA, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. GEND LAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GHUTASH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
1/5/2023 3:50:30 PM
2
P.S.BICHIYA, DISTT. MANDLA,M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. KHEMRAJ S/O ABHILASH PADWAR GHUTASH,
P.S.&TAHSIL BICHIYA DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NOS.4&5 BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAINI - ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award
dated 20.12.2012 passed by learned 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Mandla in Motor Claim Case No.163/2008 on the ground that the
award of the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts, evidence and
circumstances available on record.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased
was unmarried and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal committed error in deducting
1/5th dependency in place of 1/4th in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Others versus Delhi Transport
Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121. The offending vehicle was
insured for private use but at the time of the accident, 13 persons were travelling
and the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.
Perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal reveals that the first ground
that the deceased was a bachelor as submitted by learned counsel for the
Insurance Company in ground B is not made out. It is not made out that the
claimants are parents of the deceased. The fact of the matter is that in Motor
Claim Case No.163/2008, the claimant No.1 is wife whereas the claimants Nos.2
& 3 are children and claimant Nos.4&5 are parents of the deceased, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
1/5/2023 3:50:30 PM
this ground is not substantiated. However, it is true that in the light of the law
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Others
versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (supra), only 1/4th
deduction is to be made inasmuch as there are only five claimants. To this
extent, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal needs to be modified.
The second ground that there were thirteen persons travelling and the
offending vehicle was used contrary to the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy is also not made out. The Insurance Company has examined
its Administrative Officer Rajesh Kumar Pasine. He has not said anything about
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, when the
Insurance Company itself has failed to adduce evidence to prove violation of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that ground could not have been
taken by the Insurance Company and to that extent, it is evident that this appeal
is frivolous.
The Insurance Company has also examined its Surveyor Rajendra
Agrawal in support of his investigation report (Exhibit D/4). This witness admits
that on the statement Exhibit D/1 to D/3, there is no mention of any date. Chhoti
Bai while giving the statement Exhibit D/1 did not say that she was travelling in
the Jeep. He further admits in Paragraph No.8 of her cross-examination that the
authors of Exhibit D/2 and Exhibit D/3 were not travelling in the Jeep and they
were also not present on the spot where the accident took place. In view of
such cross-examination, the contention on behalf of the Insurance Company as
made out from the grounds is that they have failed to prove the factum of
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, this appeal can
be disposed of with slight modification that instead of 1/5th deduction, only
1/3rd deduction will be admissible in favour of the claimants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
1/5/2023 3:50:30 PM
The Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum and thereafter has deducted
1/5th amount towards living expenses of the deceased, which is incorrect. 1/4th
deduction is to be made and, therefore, taking into consideration the age of the
deceased to be 32 years, 40% is to be added towards future prospects and then
the multiplier of 16 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to
Rs.6,04,800/- over and above which the claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total
compensation to Rs.6,74,800/ against a sum of Rs.4,80,800/- awarded by the
Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Only) alongwith interest as has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the award
shall remain intact.
In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.
Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
1/5/2023 3:50:30 PM
