Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanesh @ Gyaneshwar vs Arun Banskar on 9 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
th
ON THE 09 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCALLENOUS APPEAL No.3348 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. GYANESH @ GYANESHWAR S/O SHRI
RAMCHANDRA SINGH BAHNDARI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O VIVEKANAND WARD
NEAR R.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL
KALAPATHA BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAMOD S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA
SINGH BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB
R/O VIVEKANAND WARD NEAR R.D.
PUBLIC SCHOOL KALAPATHA BETUL
DISTRICT BETUL (MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ATHARV S/O PRAMOD BHANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH HIS LEGAL
GUARDIAN FATHER PRAMOD
BHANDARI R/O VIVEKANAND WARD
NEAR R.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL
KALAPATHA BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VIKASH JYOTISHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ARUN BANSKAR S/O SURESH
BANSKAR R/O NASEERABAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 2/16/2024
11:21:07 AM
2
COLONY CHICHOLI DISTRICT
BETUL (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARSINGH NARAYAN MISHRA S/O
BHOLANATH MISHRA R/O 555,
BAJRANG NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. OFFICE AT MANDAL OFFICE
NO.4, 505 SHAGUN COMPLEX,
SCHEME NO.54, VIJAY NAGAR
CHOURAHA, A.B.ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN - ADVOCATE )
_______________________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This appeal by the claimants have been filed under section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 13.04.2022 passed by
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul, District-Betul in MACC
No.124/2019 for seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has wrongly
awarded Rs.50,000/-, whereas, appellants were Lrs of deceased and they were
also dependent on deceased. It is also urged that appellants were residing with
deceased. Therefore, relying upon in the case of Montford Brothers of St.
Gabriel and another Vs. United India Insurance and another (2014) SCC
394 , it is urged that compensation awarded by Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, after referring to
para-24 of impugned award, submits that as Tribunal has itself held that
appellants were not dependent on deceased Leela Bhandari and Tribunal has
held that they are only legal representative of deceased. Therefore, Tribunal
has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, no enhancement is
required.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
case.
5. Perusal of impugned award as well as evidence adduced by the appellants
reveal that appellant No.1 was aged about 41 years and appellant No.2 was aged
40 years at the time of accident and appellant No.3 is minor and Son of
appellant No.2. Appellant No.1 and 2 are brothers of deceased.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that appellants
were dependent on deceased. Therefore, in this connection, findings recorded by
Tribunal are correct.
7. Tribunal has determined deceased's net monthly income as Rs.39,161/- per
month. In view of age of deceased and nature of job, 15% is to be added as
future prospect and multiplier of 11 is to be applied. Thus, total loss of
dependency come to Rs.59,44,620/-.
8. Now question before this Court is whether appellant No.1 and No.2, who
are not proved to be dependents on deceased, are entitled to receive any
compensation on account of death of deceased in Motor Vehicle, if so, how
much.
9. It is well established by Catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court that
compensation in motor vehicle case is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or
source of profit. In a case of death, legal heirs of the deceased cannot expect a
windfall........It cannot be a pittance. There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, i.e. a windfall & the pittance. (Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104, National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, Reshma Kumari &
Ors Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V.
Patricia Jean Mahajan 2002 ACJ and National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Indra Shrivastava 2008 ACJ 614 SC).
10. So far as principles relating to compensation in case of "No dependency"
are concerned, this issue has been dealt by Division Bench of this Court in
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohallal (2000) ACJ
186 M.P. in para-9 and 19 which are as follows:-
9. Damages are assessed in reference to a reasonable expectation of
pecuniary benefit as of right or otherwise from the continuance of life.
The parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the
prospective service or pecuniary benefit from the deceased. It does not
matter that their own income is sufficient for their maintenance.
19. The problem of determining the just compensation arises where the
claimants were not actually dependent upon the income of the deceased
but had reasonable expectation from him. For example where the
claimants are parents having income of their own to support and
maintain themselves, or the claimants are children or husband who are
not dependent on the income of the deceased but have income of their
own. In some cases the claimants may be other legal representatives who
were not being actually maintained by the deceased. In such cases if it is
found that the deceased was able to save money out of his income and
was keeping the same in the form of deposits in a bank or in some other
form of investment that was accretion to his estate and that would
devolve upon his heirs on his natural death. If his life is cut short by
accidental death naturally the capitalized value of his income subject to
relevant deductions would be the loss caused to his estate. The tort-
feasor must compensate for this loss irrespective of the fact whether the
claimants were actually dependent upon the deceased or not. If the
claimants are mot able to claim under the first category i.e. loss of
dependency they are definitely entitled to claim under the second
category for loss to the estate. The diminution of liability in the first
category would correspondingly increase the liability of the tort-feasor
in the second category as illustrated by the facts of the Division Bench
case in Ramchandra (supra). Therefore, the loss to the estate of the
deceased must include damages for loss of earning of the lost years in
order that compensation to be awarded be termed as 'just'.
11. Similarly, in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vinish Jain and
others (2018) 3 SCC 616 Hon'ble Apex Court has also dealt with this issue and
held as under:-
6. Leave granted. This case relates to death of one A.P. Jain. He was 78 years of
age. At the time of death, his annual income was assessed at Rs 3,64,500. The
deduction made for personal expenses at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact
that the claimants are his two major sons and two granddaughters. The major
sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased
and the two granddaughters are primarily dependent on their father and not on
their grandfather. We are also of the view that the High Court has erred in
granting Rs 50,000 as loss of love and affection to each of the claimants. The
total compensation granted is Rs 14,39,980 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a
7. We feel that 50% deduction is called for and if this factor is taken into
consideration then the loss of dependency is Rs 1,82,250 and if multiplier of 5 is
used, the compensation works out to Rs 9,11,250. In addition, the claimants
would be entitled to Rs 70,000 for love and affection and funeral expenses, etc.
as per the judgment of this Court passed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680] . Accordingly, the amount of
compensation is reduced to Rs 9,81,250 along with interest awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. Present claim petition has been filed on behalf of real brothers and nephew
of deceased. In the instant case, total loss of dependency, as calculated above in
preceding para comes out to Rs.59,44,620/-.
13. Therefore, taking into consideration relationship of claimants with deceased
and principles laid down in Sohanlal (Supra), Vinish Jain (Supra), Sarla Verma
(Supra), National Insurances Company (Supra), Reshma Kumari (Supra),
United India Insurance (Supra) and National Insurance Company (Supra), in
this Court's considered opinion, it would be just and proper to award
appellant/claimants Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.
14. Enhance amount of compensation i.e. Rs.25,00,000/- shall carry interest at
the rate awarded by the Tribunal. Other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall
remain intact.
15. Appeal partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
