Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita vs Gurjit Singh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1 MA-378-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 378 of 2019
SMT. SUNITA AND OTHERS
Versus
GURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
The appellants/claimants have filed this Appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 7/9/2018 passed by
Member, Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) in MACC
No.539/2017 by which the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs. 5,95,000/- with 6% interest to the appellants/claimants by way of
compensation for the death of one Mahaveer in road accident dated
27/3/2017.
2. According to claimant, the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is on lower side, hence needs to be enhanced. So the question that
arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/ evidence adduced is made
out and if so to what extent?
3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how
the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle,
2 MA-378-2019
who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that all these
findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, the
findings though recorded in favour of claimants are not under challenge at
the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance
company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the
matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on
all these issues.
4. As observed supra, it is an death case. On 27/3/2017 at about 10.00
am when deceased Mahaveer was going on his bicycle, it is alleged that
respondent No. 1 by driving its truck bearing registration No.PB29R0697 in
a very rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle, due to which deceased
received grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on spot, therefore, his
family members/claimants i.e. wife and children preferred claim case
seeking compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims
Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month; whereas,
deceased used to earn No. 15,000/- per month by doing tiles work in
construction sites. Further no amount under the head future prospects has
been awarded. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses, whereas, in the light of decision of Apex Court
in the matter of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Anr. (2009)6SCC121 ,looking to the number of dependents it should be
1/4th.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submit that the amount
3 MA-378-2019
awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for
enhancement is made out. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the record as well as findings as recorded in the
impugned award, in the opinion of this Court the income of deceased as
assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, same is
assessed at Rs.6,950/- per month, as minimum remuneration of semi skilled
person as was at that time as per SALSA Guidelines, because deceased was
engaged in the work of tiles at construction sites as per the evidence. Further
since the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident, an addition of
10% of actual salary to the income of deceased towards future prospects is
required to be added in light of decision of Apex Court in the matter of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.,
(2017)16SCC680. Further in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims
Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and thus in light
of decision of Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), looking to
the number of dependents it is held that 1/4th is required to be deducted
towards personal expenses. Thus, by assessing his monthly income at Rs.
6950/- per month, his yearly income comes to Rs. 83,400/- to which 1/4 is
required to be deducted towards personal expenses and after deducting the
same, remaining amount comes to Rs. 62,550/- now 10% is required to be
added as future prospects and after adding the same, amount comes to
Rs.62550/- + 6255/- =68,805/-. Multiplier of 13 is required to be applied and
after applying the same, the compensation to which claimants are entitled for
4 MA-378-2019
under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,94,465/- to which Rs.
70,000/- is required to be added under the heads funeral expenses, loss of
estate and loss of consortium and after adding the same, total compensation
amount comes to Rs. 9,64,465/-. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,95,000/- therefore, claimants are held entitled to
receive an enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,69,465/- rounded to 3,69,500/-
which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim case and
shall be payable to the claimants within two months from today. Rest of the
conditions including liability as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain
intact.
9. Appeal stands allowed in part and impugned award is modified to
the extent as indicated hereinabove.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
