Sumanbai Chaudhary vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2023 Latest Caselaw 17892 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
                                            ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             MISC. APPEAL No. 6926 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SUMANBAI CHAUDHARY W/O CHHAGANLAL
                                 CHAUDHARY,   AGED  ABOUT   43 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE GRAM TILAWAD
                                 GOVIND, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MAHESH         KUMAR     CHAUDHARY    S/O
                                 CHHAGANLAL CHAUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 24
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O: GRAM
                                 TILAWAD GOVIND , TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....APPELLANTS
                           (SHRI ABHISHEK GILKE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS).

                           AND
                           1.    ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MANAGER
                                 REGIONAL OFFICE (M.R. 05 ROAD, BHARATPURI),
                                 IN FRONT OF NEW INDIA INSURANCE,. UJJAIN
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SURAJ S/O KALU KANJAR, AGED ABOUT 28
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O: GRAM
                                 CHHAPIHEDA, KANJAR KA DERA, POLICE
                                 STATION CHHAPIHEDA , DISTRICT RAJGARH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    KULDEEP RATHORE S/O YADAVSINGH RATHORE,
                                 AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
                                 R/O: 161, GRAM LIMBODI , NEAR HANUMAN
                                 MANDIR, KHANDWA ROAD, POLICE STATION
                                 TEJAJI NAGAR , INDORE (M.P.) (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI SUDHIR DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT [R-1]).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/28/2023
11:09:44 AM
                                                                2
                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

This appeal by the claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 04.10.2019 passed by MACT, Shajapur in Claim Case No.109/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of Chhaganlal

Patidar, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- along with interest. The breakup of the compensation amount is as under:

Loss of dependency -Rs.4,00,000/- (i.e. Rs.5000x12=60000 - 1/3 personal expenses=40000x10 (multiplier)) Consortium -Rs.40,000/-

                                 Funeral expenses          -Rs.15,000/-
                                                            -----------------
                                                      TOTAL Rs.4,55,000/-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month which is on the very lower. The deceased was an agriculturist. He was having 15 bigha agricultural land and was earning Rs.3 lakhs per annum from agriculture. He was also engaged in the business of milk and was earning Rs.3500/- per month from milk business. The Tribunal has also committed an Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/28/2023 11:09:44 AM

error in not awarding any sum under the head of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal has also committed an error in deciding the age of the deceased. At the time of accident he was aged about 46 years, however, the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the age of the deceased as 55 years, therefore, the multiplier that applied for calculating loss of dependency ought to have been 13 instead of 10 which was applied by the Tribunal, hence prays for just and proper amount of compensation in the case.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the evidence that came on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Considering the evidence that came on record, the income of the deceased which was assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower

side which should be enhanced from Rs.5000/- per month to Rs.6000/- per month. The Tribunal has also committed an error in applying the multiplier of 10 which should have been 13 considering his age at the time of the incident. Besides, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head of future prospects in the light of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal has also not awarded filial consortium in the case in the light of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/28/2023 11:09:44 AM

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narnu Ram & others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Considering the overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the arguments made by the counsel for the appellant and the evidence that came on record, the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced as under:

Loss of dependency -Rs.7,80,000/- (i.e. Rs.6000 25/100 (FP)=7500 - 1/3 personal expenses x 12 x 13 (multiplier)) Loss of consortium -Rs.80,000/- (40000x2) Other conventional heads -Rs.30,000/-

------------------

TOTAL Rs.8,90,000/-

6. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.8,90,000/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.4,55,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,35,000/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.

7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,35,000/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE hk/

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/28/2023 11:09:44 AM