Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ku. Ranjana on 5 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 5351 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THROUGH TP HUB INCHARGE ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. HUB RUSSEL CROSSING D.
BARAT ROAD 1561 NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR
BRANCH OFFICE AT IN FRONT OF PAATNI
COMPLEX PARASIYA CHHINDWARA ROAD
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
......APPELLANT
AND
1. KU. RANJANA D/O LATE DEVRAO SONARE,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SIMRIYATOLA POST JAAM POLICE
STATION & TEHSIL MOHKHED DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P)
2. KU TAI D/O LATE DEVRAO SONARE, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
VILLAGE SIMRIYATOLA POST JAAM PS &
- 2 -
TAHSIL MOHKHED DISRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P)
3. RAVI S/O GOVIND DEHRIYA, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE POST PONAR
POLICE STATION & TAHSIL AMARWADA
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
4. SMT. SUMATRA W/O VIJAY SAHU, AGED 40
YEARS, R/O NEAR SHIV MANDIR
AMARWADA P.S & TAHSIL AMARWADA
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
............RESPONDENTS
MISC. APPEAL No. 5364 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE ORIENTAL INSYRANCE COMPANY
LTD. THROUGH TP HUB INCHARGE THE
ORIENTAL INSYRANCE COMPANY LTD. TP
HUB RUSSEL CROSSING DR. BARAT ROAD
1561 BRANCH OFFICE AI IN FRTONT OF
PAATNI COMPLEX PARASIYA
CHHIONDWARA ROAD DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI TEJVINDER SINGH LAMBA - ADVOCATE)
AND
- 3 -
1. KU. RANJANA D/O LATE DEVRAO
SONARE, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE PONAR POST PONAR POKUICE
STATION AND TEHISL AMARWADA
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
2. KU. TAI D/O LATE DEVRAO SONARE, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, VILLAGE SIMRIYATOLA
POST JAAM P.S. AND TAHSIL MONKHED
(M.P)
3. RAVI S/O GOVIND DEHRIYA, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, VILLAGE PONER POST PONAR
P.S. AND TAHSIL AMARWADS (M.P)
4. SMT. SUMATRA W/O VIJAY SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NEAR SHIV
MANDIR AMARWADS P.S. AND TAHSIL
AMARWADA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
There being common question involved in both the misc. appeals
and having arisen out of same accident, are being decided by this
common order.
- 4 -
2. Heard on question of admission and perused the record of MACT.
3. These misc. appeals have been preferred by the Insurance
Company challenging final award dated 26.04.2023 passed by Vth
Additional MACT, Chindwara, in Claim Case Nos.201/2019 & 200/2019
whereby an amount of Rs. 44,34,610/- (in claim case no. 201/2019) and
an amount of Rs.20,48,368/- (in claim case no.200/2019) has been
awarded holding the appellant/Insurance Company and respondents 3-4
(driver and owner of the vehicle) liable to pay awarded amount jointly
and severally.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that
in fact no accident had occurred with the offending Vehicle No. MP28-G-
3385 (Pick up goods/loading vehicle) and has falsely been implicated in
the accident just with a view to get the compensation. Learned counsel
submits that accident had occurred on 29.08.2018 at about 08:30 p.m and
one Shubham Patel (NAW-2) lodged FIR against the unknown vehicle
and after lapse of a period about 3 months 26 days, vehicle was seized on
24.12.2018. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of testimony of
alleged eye witness namely, Wakil Khan (AW-4), MACT committed
illegality in allowing the claim petition despite there being many
discrepancies in his testimony.
- 5 -
5. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant-Ranjana Sonare
has already been given compassionate appointment, therefore, MACT has
erred in assessing 2/3rd dependency and in the light of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Vinish Jain and others 2018 SCC OnLine SC 153, maximum 50%
dependency should have been assessed. In support of his submissions,
learned Counsel placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case
of Safiq Ahmad vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and
others (2021) 18 SCC 813; judgment of Bombay High Court in the case
of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Tilottam and others
(2022) 2 AIR Bom R 574; decisions of this Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Setu Bai and others I.L.R (2008) M.P.
2367; Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Savitri Bai and
others passed in M.A.No.2306/2022 (at Jabalpur); and Tata AIG General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamlabai Kachhi (Patel) & others
passed in M.A.No.4825/2018 (at Jabalpur).
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents supports
the impugned award and submits that immediately after occurence of
accident at 08:30 p.m on 29.08.2018, FIR was lodged against unknown
vehicle on 29.08.2018 itself by Shubham Patel, which is also clear from
- 6 -
statement of Shubham Patel (NAW-2). He submits that there is no
discrepancy in the testimony of eye witness Wakil Khan (AW-4) and only
on the basis of minor discrepancy regarding date of recording of his
statement on 28.09.2018 or after 3-4 months, it cannot be said that no
accident occurred with the offending vehicle or it has falsely been
implicated.
7. Learned counsel submits that because the claimants-Tai Sonare and
Ranjana Sonare are spinster sisters/dependents on income of deceased,
therefore, MACT has rightly assessed 2/3rd dependency and placed
reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case Sarla Verma
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 310; &
Narchinva V. Kamat and another vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and
others AIR 1985 SC 1281 as well as the decisions of this Court in the
case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lekheswari passed in
M.A.No.4880/2010 (at Jabalpur); and in the case of Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Munni Devi AIR ONLINE 2013
MP 7.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the present case, accident occurred on 29.08.2018, in which
husband and wife namely, Swati Sonare and Arun Sonare had died and
- 7 -
one Shubham Patel lodged FIR on 29.08.2018 against unknown vehicle,
which during the investigation was seized by police on 24.12.2018.
10. Although, Shubham Patel has been examined by appellant/non-
applicant/Insurance Company but his testimony clearly proves the
accident in question. Eye witness Wakil Khan (AW-4) also clearly stated
that accident occurred in front of him and he gave statement to the Police.
Although in the statement (Ex.D/1) of eye witness Wakil Khan, recorded
by Police, date 28.09.2018 has been mentioned and in his court statement
he has stated that his statement was recorded after 3-4 months but, that
itself is not sufficient to discard his testimony, which is otherwise
reliable. In my considered opinion if the appellant/insurer wanted to take
benefit of this ambiguity about recording of statement on 28.09.2018 or
after 3-4 months, then it was for the appellant/Insurance Company to
examine the concerning person/I.O., who recorded statement.
11. It is also apparent on record that with a view of disprove the
accident and involvement of the offending vehicle, the insurance
company, as per its defense, did not try to bring the I.O. or driver of
offending vehicle in the witness box, in absence thereof findings
regarding involvement of offending vehicle do not warrant any
interference.
- 8 -
12. So far as the question of assessment of dependency is concerned, in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra,
the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent
family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six."
13. Undisputedly both the claimants being major, were dependant on
the income of deceased, therefore, in the light of decision in the case of
Sarla Verma (supra), 2/3 dependency has rightly been assessed by
MACT.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion,
MACT does not appear to have committed any illegality in passing the
impugned award.
15. Resultantly, both misc. appeal(s) fail and are hereby dismissed at
the admission stage itself.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
