Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radha Bai vs Mukesh Kumar Lodhi on 22 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 22 nd OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 4310 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISIONAL
MANAGER AT PRESENT THROUGH MANAGER
INCHARGE T.P. HUB 1454 1ST FLOOR RAJKIRAN
BHAWAN NEAR HOTEL ASHOKA WRIGHT TOWN
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI GULAB CHAND SOHANE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RADHA BAI W/O LATE DAYALU BERMAN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHAIWARA
POLICE STATION KYMORE DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UTSAV @ GAGAN BERMAN S/O LATE DAYALU
BERMAN, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.
RADHA BAI BERMAN R/O VILLAGE KHALWARA,
POLICE STATION KYMORE, DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADITYA BERMAN S/O LATE DAYALU BERMAN,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RADHA BAI
BERMAN R/O VILLAGE KHALWARA, POLICE
STATION KYMORE, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SUMIT BERMAN S/O LATE DAYALU BERMAN,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RADHA BAI
BERMAN R/O VILLAGE KHALWARA, POLICE
Signature Not Verified
SAN
STATION KYMORE, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
5. MUKESH KUMAR LODHI S/O SANTOSH LODHI
2
R/O VILLAGE HARAIYA, POLICE STATION
KYMORE DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAJBHAN SINGH S/O SHRI P.L. SINGH GOUND R/O
GHOUTARI GURAIYA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. DROPADI BAI W/O KANCHHEDI BERMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHALWARA, POLICE STATION KYMORE,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. KANCHHEDI BERMAN S/O LATE SHRI RAM DAS
BERMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHALWARA, POLICE STATION KYMORE,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO
4)
(SHRI UMA SHANKAR JAYASWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 7
AND 8)
MISC. APPEAL No. 3896 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RADHA BAI W/O LATE DAYALU BURMAN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, GRAM KHALWARA THANA
KAIMORE DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UTSAV @ GAGAN BURMAN S/O LATE DAYALU
BURMAN, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH NATURAK GUARDIAN RADHA
BAI W/O LATE DAYALU BURMAN AGE 25 YEARS
GRAM KHALWARA THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADITYA BURMAN S/O LATE DAYALU BURMAN,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NATURAK GUARDIAN RADHA BAI W/O
LATE DAYALU BURMAN AGE 25 YEARS GRAM
KHALWARA THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUMIT S/O LATE DAYALU BURMAN, AGED ABOUT
Signature Not Verified
SAN 2 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH
NATURAK GUARDIAN RADHA BAI W/O LATE
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
DAYALU BURMAN AGE 25 YEARS GRAM
KHALWARA THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT KATNI
3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUKESH KUMAR LODHI S/O SANTOSH LODHI
GRAM HARIYA THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJBHAN SINGH S/O LATE P.L. SINGH GOUD R/O
DHOTARI GORAIYA MAIHAR, TEHSIL MAIHAR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, 1454, RAJKIRAN BHAVAN, FIRST FLOOR,
NEAR ASHOKA HOTEL, WRIGHT TOWN,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. DROPTI BAI W/O KANCHEDI BURMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GRAM KHALWARA
THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KANCHEDI BURMAN S/O LATE RAMDAS
BURMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, GRAM
KHALWARA THANA KAIMORE DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GULAB CHAND SOHANE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3)
(SHRI UMA SHANKAR JAYASWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 4
AND 5)
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants
respectively being aggrieved of the award dated 9th April, 2022 passed in
MACC No. 315/2017.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there was
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
breach of permit, breach of fitness, license was also not available and the policy
was cancelled after giving notice to the insured, therefore, the order of pay and
recover by the Tribunal is arbitrary and illegal.
Shri Kapil Patwardhan submits that the date of accident is 07/04/2017.
The income is computed at Rs. 5,500/- per month whereas age of the deceased
was 29 years, therefore, minimum wages if taken into consideration that is to the
tune of Rs. 7,125/-, then there will be an enhancement in the amount.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the plea taken by Shri
Sohane gets diluted from the discussion made by the Tribunal in para 21, 22
and 23 of the award. Admittedly, the witness of the Insurance Company
namely Diksha Dixit did not produce the record of sending the notice to insured
Shri Rajbhan Singh nor any acknowledgement was produced.
Similarly, she did not produce a copy of the proposal form which she
had admitted in her cross-examination to contain all the details of the premium
to prove as to whose cheque was given by Shri Rajbhan Singh which was
allegedly dishonoured. Infact, this witness admitted that the cheque which was
dishonoured was from the account of one Shri Mukesh Kumar Dwivedi and she
had no knowledge as to who had collected the premium. She said that the
premium would have been collected by Amit Tripathi Agent of the Insurance
Company.
Admittedly, Amit Tripathi was not examined before the court of law.
Thus, the plea of cancellation of policy is not proved and thus in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs Laxmamma and others (2012) 5 SCC 234 and the one
Signature Not Verified
SAN
decided by this court in the case of Smt. Kranti Bai Vs. Ashok Das in M.A.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
No. 2644/10 on 31st January, 2023, this court is of the opinion that in absence
of cogent evidence led by the Insurance Company to discharge their burden in
regard to cancellation of the policy, the Tribunal has not committed any error in
rejecting this plea. Since, this plea could not be substantiated, the appeal filed
by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
As far as claimant's appeal is concerned, the minimum wages on the date
of the accident were to the tune of Rs. 7,125/- per month or Rs. 85,500/- per
annum. 1/4th is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased and
then 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Multiplier of 17 will be
applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 15,26,175/- over and
above which claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the head
of non-pecuniary compensation and children will be entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- each.
Thus, total compensation will come out to Rs. 17,16,175/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs Sixteen thousand one hundred and seventy five only) against a
sum of Rs. 14,75,100/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Seventy five thousand one
hundred only) awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
Thus, there will be an addition to the tune of Rs. 2,41,075/- (Rupees Two
lakhs forty one thousand seventy five only) which will be payable in addition to
the amounts awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
This additional amount will earn interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
The other terms and conditions of the award like pay and recover etc.
shall remain intact.
Signature Not Verified
In above terms, the appeals are disposed of.
SAN
Record of the Tribunal be sent back.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
vy
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.06.27 11:09:35 IST
