Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs Bansilal on 5 August, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 265 of 2021
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
BANSILAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants .
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondents
ORDER
1/ Matter is heard finally.
2/ Appellants have preferred present appeal under section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to
"M.V.Act") being aggrieved by impugned award dated 24/01/2020
passed by First Additional, MACT, District - Neemuch in Claim Case
no. 38/2019 whereby compensation of sum of Rs. 5,49,000/- with
interest @ 7.5 % per annum has been awarded against the appellants
and in favour of the respondents/claimants.
3/ Relevant and necessary facts of the case in brief are that
on 15/10/2017 at about 3.00 pm, when respondent/claimant's minor
daughter Shivangi was sitting behind her house to answer natural call,
appellant no. 2 Devilal being driver of offending tractor bearing
registration no. MP-44-M-2924 alongwith trolley bearing registration
no. MP-44-M-2957 came there rashly and negligently and hit
Shivangi, due to which, she succumbed. FIR of the incident was
lodged at police station - Neemuch under section 279 and 304-A of
IPC Appellant no. 1 is the owner of offending vehicle.
4 Respondent/claimants filed claim petition under section
166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/- with
interest @ 12^ per annum by stating that they are the parents of
deceased Shivangi. At the time of the incident, her age was 2 ½ years
and they have been deprived from future income of the deceased.
5/ Respondents denied all the averments made in the claim
petition by filing their written statements that appellant Devilal did not
commit any accident and they have been falsely implicated in this
offence, therefore, they are not liable for any compensation.
6 On the basis of the aforesaid pleading, the Claim Tribunal,
after framing of issues and appreciating the evidence available on
record, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding amount of Rs.
5,49,000 /- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum to
the respondents/claimants. Being aggrieved by impugned award as
well as the findings given by the Claim Tribunal, present appeal has
been preferred before this Court.
7/ Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
impugned awarde by the Claims Tribunal is against the law and facts.
Claims Tribunal has ignored the evidence adduced by the appellants.
Statement of complainant Magilal is not reliable. Deceased Shivangi
was minor child at the time of the incident, therefore, the Claims
Tribunal has wrongly calculated 40% under the head of future
prospect. The deceased was suffering from heart decease since her
birth. Claims Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier of 20.
Assessment regarding hypothetical income of the deceased as Rs.
4200/- per month is very excessive. Hence, he prays that impugned
award passed by the Claims Tribunal be set aside. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment/order passed in
the case of Rani and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Yadav and
another [ 2016 ACJ 777] and Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State
of Bihar and others [ 2001 ACJ 1735]
8/ Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
opposed the aforesaid prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is based upon cogent
evidence, which is just and proper and does not deserve for any
interference.
9/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
entire record with due care.
10/ Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
appellant Devilal's heirs Omprakash (DW-1) has categorically stated
before the Claims Tribunal that he does not know driving of the
tractor and no incident has taken place from his tractor and trolley. His
statement is supported by Ramesh (DW-2), but claimant Banshilal
(PW-1) categorically stated that the aforesaid incident took place by
offending vehicle being registration no. MP-44-M-2924 and tractor
trolley, which was being driven by appellant Devilal rashly and
negligently. Statement of Banshilal is well supported by Shivlal (PW-
2) . Apart from the above, his statement is duly supported by final
report Ex-P/1 and Ex-P/2 and other document Ex.-P/3 to Ex.-P/11.
Omprakash (DW-1) categorically admits in his cross-examination that
FIR bearing Crime no. 461/2017 has been registered against him and
he is facing prosecution for the aforesaid offence. If the appellants
were falsely implicated in the instant case, then why they did not
make any compliant before higher police authority, therefore, in view
of the aforesaid evidence, the claimants have successfully proved that
the aforesaid incident took place by offending vehicle, being driven by
appellant rashly and negligently ant at the time of the incident,,
appellant no. 1 Mangilal was the registered owner of offending
vehicle, but the vehicle was not insured with any Insurance Company.
11/ Learned counsel for the respondents prays for
enhancement in compensation amount and cited certain judgment in
that regard, which follows as under :
Kusmi Devi Vs. Md. Kasum and another [2023 ACJ 1658];
Meena Devi Vs. Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto
and others[ IV (2022)ACC 482 (SC)]
Kishan Goptak and another Vs.Lala and others [ Criminal
Appeal no 7137 of 2013 decided on 26/08/2013]
Dilipbhai Babarbhai Parmar Vs. Dilipbhai Ramjibhai Patel
[ II (2023) ACC 18 (Guj)]
12/ It is noteworthy that claimants/ respondents did not file
any cross-appeal, therefore, they are not entitled for enhancement of
compensation amount .
13/ From perusal of the entire evidence available on record,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is just, proper and adequate and not deserve for any
interference by this Court. However, the appellants are not exonerated
from the liability of payment of claimed amount.
14/ In the result, present misc. appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
15/ Both the parties, shall bear their own expenses.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
