Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram vs Narendra Upadhyay on 27 June, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 399 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
RAJARAM S/O S/O BEDRILAL JATAV , AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O KHADIYAHAR PARGANA
AND DISTT.MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. ARUN SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
NARENDRA UPADHYAY S/O S/O SHIVCHARAN
1. UPADHYAY OCCUPATION: OWNER, R/O
MAHAVEERPURA,MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAJVEERS/O KISHANPAL RATHOR OCCUPATION:
2. DRIVER, R/O GRAM LALLU BASAI PAR AMBAH
DISTT.MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. M.S.ROAD,
3.
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. VANDANA KEKRE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO. 3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Present miscellaneous appeal has been filed assailing the award of
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) dated
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.28
15:01:09 +05'30'
24.11.2009 passed in Claim Case No. 06/2003.
2. The facts in brief to decide the appeal are that a claim petition was
filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of injury
sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 06.6.2000 involving
vehicle mini bus bearing registration No. MP20 E 9534.
3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 - Owner and Driver of the offending
vehicle respectively remained absent before the claims tribunal and were
proceeded ex-parte.
4. Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company filed its written statement
and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that
driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license
Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Learned claims tribunal framed issues and after hearing both the
parties on merits and recording their evidence partially allowed the claim
petition of the appellant and awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.9,79,468/- which was directed to be paid by the respondents jointly and
severely.
6. The grounds for this appeal are that learned claims tribunal has
wrongly calculated the loss of income of the appellant / claimant ignoring
Digitally signed by ALOK
KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.28
15:01:28 +05'30'
the fact that on account of this accident, the appellant / claimant lost his
job as well as earning. Therefore, the appellant has suffered 100% loss of
his earning capacity. Appellant / claimant is also entitled 50% future
prospects as he was a government employee and he was in the age group
of 31-35 years at the time of accident. However, learned counsel for the
appellant fairly conceded that the multiplier of 17 has wrongly been
applied by learned claims tribunal and it should have been of 16 looking to
the age of the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company
supported the impugned award but he has also submitted that multiplier of
17 has wrongly been applied by learned claims tribunal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
9. The perusal of record reveals that appellant / claimant has examined
Dr. Umesh Gautam as AW No. 3, who has proved the permanent disability
certificate Ex.P-73 and opined that on account of accident, the appellant /
claimant suffered 90% permanent disability. The above observation and
opinion of AW-3 remain unchallenged in his cross-examination and
nothing emerged in his cross-examination to disbelieve his statement,
therefore, learned claims tribunal has erred in holding that appellant /
claimant has suffered only 80% permanent disability on account of this
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.28
15:01:47 +05'30'
accident. Evidence of Dr. Umesh Gautam (AW-3) and Brijmohan (AW-4)
also reveals that on account of 90% permanent disability, appellant /
claimant was removed from the services. Appellant was serving in CRPF
and since he was removed from services, learned claims tribunal has also
erred in holding that the loss of income suffered by the appellant / claimant
is only 80%. Therefore, the finding of learned claims tribunal on this point
is hereby aside. Since appellant suffered 90% permanent disability due to
which he was removed from services, therefore, it is held that the appellant
has suffered 100% loss in his income.
10. So far as compensation under the head of future prospects is
concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant / claimant was a
government employee working in the CRPF and was getting Rs.5634/- per
month as salary, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.;
2017 ACJ 2700, 50% future prospect would be applicable, appellant being
below 40 years of age and salaried employee.
11. So far as multiplier applied by learned claims tribunal is concerned,
both the parties agreed upon that learned claims tribunal has wrongly
applied the multiplier of 17 and multiplier of 16 should have been applied
in view of the age of the appellant at the time of accident.
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.28
15:02:08 +05'30'
12. In view of the above as well as in the light of the case law of Pranay
Sethi (supra), considering the monthly income of the deceased to be
Rs.5634/-, 50% future prospect, multiplier of 16 and Rs.60,000/- towards
pan and suffering, medical expenses, attendant and special diet, total
compensation amount comes to Rs.16,82,592/- [10,81,728 (5634x12x16) +
5,40,864 (50% future prospect on 10,81,728) + 60000]. The tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.9,79,468/- to the appellant / claimant. The enhanced
compensation amount comes to Rs.7,03,124/- (Rs.16,82,592 - 9,79,468).
The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.7,03,124/- (Rs. Seven Lakh
Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four only) shall carry interest
as awarded by learned claims tribunal from the date of claim application
till realization. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to
the appellant - claimant by the Insurance Company within a period of 12
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Rest of
the award passed by learned claims tribunal shall remain intact.
13. Present miscellaneous appeal is hereby disposed of in above terms.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.28
15:02:30 +05'30'
