Nagendra Patel vs Aarti Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 5006 MP

                            1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                 ON THE 28 th OF MARCH, 2023
                 MISC. APPEAL No. 3209 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
1.    NAGENDRA PATEL S/O NARAYAN SINGH PATEL,
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HAPSILI
      TEH- BEGUMGANJ DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    MUNAVVAR ALI ( WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
      MUNNAVAR ALI IN IMPUGNED AWARD) S/O
      NAZAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O
      CHORWADI BEGUMGANJ, P.S. BEGUMGANJ,
      DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                 .....APPELLANTS
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS)

AND
1.    AARTI YADAV W/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH YADAV,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TINSUA
      TAHSIL AND THANA BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    VARSHA YADAV D/O LATE SANTOSH YADAV,
      AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINORS
      THROUGH MOTHER R.NO.1 R/O VILLAGE TINSUA
      TAHSIL AND THANA BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    RESHU YADAV S/O LATE SANTOSH YADAV, AGED
      ABOUT    10   YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINORS
      THROUGH MOTHER R.NO.1 R/O VILLAGE TINSUA
      TAHSIL AND THANA BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    KANCHAN YADAV D/O LATE SANTOSH YADAV,
      AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINORS
      THROUGH MOTHER R.NO.1 R/O VILLAGE TINSUA
      TAHSIL AND THANA BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                        2
5.        VIKASH YADAV S/O LATE SANTOSH YADAV, AGED
          ABOUT    6    YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINORS
          THROUGH MOTHER R.NO.1 R/O VILLAGE TINSUA
          TAHSIL AND THANA BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
          RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

          This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                        ORDER

1 . On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the lawyers are abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.3.2023, issued by the Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to follow the

various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to time in respect of strike.

2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 passed In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. & others (W.P. No.7295/2023) has issued following directions:

(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective courts forthwith;

(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from

attending the court;

( v ) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;

(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice.

3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to issue notice to counsels for the appellants as well as counsels for the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and Others (supra).

5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.

6. Record of the Claims Tribunal has been received.

7. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 27.10.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.) in MACC No.27/2015.

8 . According to the claimants, deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav alongwith Ramkaran Yadav were going towards their village from Begumganj on

motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 38 MH 2365. On 23.02.2015 at about 7.30, the offending truck bearing registration No.MP 38 H 0213 by driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle from front, as a result Santosh Kumar Yadav and the pillion rider Ramkaran Yadav died on the spot.

9. The Claims Tribunal after framing issues and recording evidence allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.5,23,000/-.

10. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is mentioned in the memo of appeal that in fact the driver of the motor cycle was also negligent and therefore, the owner, driver and insurance company of the motor cycle were also necessary party. The appellants had filed W.P. No.6444/2015 challenging the very factum of accident and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Police to conduct the investigation in an independent manner. The appellant No.2 has been acquitted by JMFC for offence under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act in criminal case No.415/2015 which clearly shows that the appellant No.2 was not the driver and was not responsible for the accident.

11. It is further mentioned that an exorbitant compensation amount has b een awarded however it has not been clarified that under which head the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a higher side.

12. Considered the grounds raised in the application.

13. The judgment passed in the criminal case will not be having any binding effect on the claim petition and the claim petition has to be decided on the basis of evidence lead before the tribunal. Criminal cases are decided on the basis of strict proof of guilt of the accused, whereas the claim petitions are decided on preponderance of probabilities. Since the degree of proof in a criminal case is much higher in comparison to the degree of proof in a claim case therefore, the judgment passed in a criminal case is not binding on the Claims Tribunal.

14. The Dehati Nalishi was lodged by the eye witness Balram and in the said Dehati Nalishi, the registration number of the truck was specifically

mentioned. Thus, the involvement of the offending truck in the accident is undisputed. The accident took place on 23.02.2015 and the truck was seized on 02.03.2015. It is clear from the seizure memo of the truck that the front covering sheet of the truck was replaced. Since it was head on collision, therefore, it is clear that the owner and driver of the truck had tried to destroy the evidence because front part of the truck must have suffered dent and in order to remove those dents the front iron sheet of truck was replaced. Munnawar Khan, the appellant No.2, who was driving the truck, has appeared as a witness and has admitted that on the date of accident he was driving the truck but he claimed that the accident did not take place from his truck but admitted that at the time of accident, his truck was on Tulsipar Road, where the accident took place. The Dehati Nalishi was lodged immediately. The non-applicants had examined certain witnesses to claim that the accident took place with one tractor and trolley. The non-applicants have examined one Jagat Singh, who has claimed that immediately after the accident, when he went to the spot he found that one Eicher tractor and trolley was standing there and two persons were lying on the road in a dead condition. However, this witness did not disclose the registration number of the tractor and trolley. This witness has also admitted that he is not an eye witness of the accident. The claimants have examined Pran Singh, who is an eye witness. He has stated that the accident took place in front of his field and he was standing at a distance of about 300 to 400 feet. Thus, it is clear that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that the accident was caused by the appellant No.2 by driving the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner.

15. So far the question of compensation is concerned, the Claims

Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,23,000/-by assessing the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. The accident took place on 23.02.2015. As per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum monthly wages of an unskilled labourer was Rs.5895/- therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the notional income assessed by the Claims tribunal is on a higher side. The age of the deceased Santosh was held to be 42 years and therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14. The total numbers of dependents were five i.e. widow and four children and

therefore, the personal expenses to the tune of 1/4th has been rightly taken by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium for the widow and Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of estate, whereas in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants were entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.2,00,000/- towards consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,08,000/-, whereas the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,23,000/-.

16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded an unjust compensation. Since, no cross objection has been filed therefore, the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is upheld.

17. Ex-consequenti, the award dated 27.10.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.) in MACC No.27/2015 is hereby affirmed.

18. The Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.03.29 10:34:43 +05'30'