Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nandibai vs Ramesh on 9 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4003 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SMT. NANDIBAI W/O PRABHULAL JI
MALI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK GRAM
MANAKHEDA TEH. PIPLODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAMESHCHANDRA S/O PRABHULAL JI
MALI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: NOTHING R/O GRAM
MANAKHEDA, TEH. PIPLODA , DIST .
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAILASH S/O PRABHULAL JI MALI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3. NOTHINGQ R/O GRAM MANAKHEDA,
TEH. PIPLODA , DIST . RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MOHANLAL S/O SARDJI MALI, AGED
ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
4. NOTHING R/O GRAM MANAKHEDA,
TEH. PIPLODA , DIST . RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SARJUBAI W/O MOHANLAL MALI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEHOLD R/O GRAM MANAKHEDA,
TEH. PIPLODA , DIST . RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BH SHRI MANISH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMESH S/O BALU JI BAMNIYA, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. DRIVER H.NO.111, PATTHAR MUNDLA
PS BHANWARKUA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ROHIT S/O SURESH SOMANI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2. OWNER R/O BADA CHOWK ,
JANAKPUR, MANDASAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THRU D.M. B.O SAILANA ROAD .FRONT
3.
OF SHREE RAM MANDIR , RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRITI KESHWANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3)
MISC. APPEAL No. 4009 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RAJARAM S/O GANESHRAM MALI, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR GRAM
MANAKHEDA TEH. PIPLODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BH SHRI MANISH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMESH S/O BALU JI BAMNIYA, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. DRIVER H.NO.111, PAT-THAR MUNDLA
PS BHANWARKUA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RHOIT S/O SURESH SOMANI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
OWNER BADA CHOWK, JANAPUR,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
D.M. B.O. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY SAILANA ROAD, FRONT OF
3.
SHREE RAM MANDIR RATLAM DIST.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRITI KESHWANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3)
MISC. APPEAL No. 4011 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MANISH S/O NANDKISHORE RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM MANAKHEDA TEH.
PIPLODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BH SHRI MANISH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMESH S/O BALU JI BAMNIYA, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
DRIVER H.NO.111, PAT-THAR MUNDLA
PS BHAWARKUA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ROHIT S/O SURESH SOMANI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
OWNER BADA CHOWK JANAKPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
3. LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE FRONT OF
SHREE RAM MANDIR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(PRITI KESHWANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-3].
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
These appeals by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 08.03.2019 passed by
Second Member MACT, Indore in Claim Case Nos.110/2017, 108/2017
and 109/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. In nutshell the facts giving rise to these appeals by the claimants
before the Tribunal was that on 06.10.2017 the labourers Manish and
Rajaram were returning on motorcycle No.MP-43-DX-8125 from village
New Abadi. When they reached on the highway of New Abadi at 6:30 pm
the driver of White Color Car No.M.P-09-CT-2625 coming from
Mandsaur rashly and negligently hit the deceased Prabhulal Mali resident
of village Manankheda, Tehsil Piploda District Ratlam (M.P) and after
that he dashed the motorcyle No.MP-43-DX-8125 of Rajaram and
Manish as a result the Prabhulal died on the spot and Rajaram and
Manish got injuries. They were brought in Ambulance in Community
Health Centre, Jaora, the dead body of the deceased was kept in the
mortuary and Manish and Rajram were referred to District Hospital,
Ratlam. A criminal case was registered in Police Station, Ringnod. The
injured were examined and the body of the deceased was sent for
postmortem. The offending vehicle was recovered and seized, the
chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under
Section 279, 338 and 304 (A) of the IPC.
3. The legal representatives of deceased Prabhulal in MA
No.4003/2019, the appellants have filed claim petition before the
Tribunal as well as the injured/appellants Manish and Rajaram for
compensation amount on the ground of permanent disability.
4. The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed the reply before the Tribunal
and denied the incident and further pleaded that the vehicle was insured
with the Insurance Company/respondent No.3. and driver of the vehicle
was having valid and effective license therefore, the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation.
5. Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has denied all the averments
and stated that no incident has occurred from the insured vehicle and
further, stated that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the vehicle in
violation of the traffic and motor vehicles rules. The driver of the
motorcycle as well as of the car were not having valid and effective
license. Thus, the Police Authorities and claimants have not followed the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act hence, the Insurance Company is
not liable to indemnify.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal on pleadings framed the issues and
passed the consolidated award.
7. The LRs of deceased Prabulal in MA No.4003/2019, the appellants
have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation amount by
Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly assessed
the income of the deceased and thus, awarded less amount. The Tribunal
was bound to assess the minimum income as provided under the
Minimum Wage Act and the notification issued by the respective district.
He has also argued that the Tribunal has awarded only spousal
consortium and has not awarded filial and parental consortium.
8. In MA No.4011/2019, learned counsel for the appellant (Manish)
has submitted that the evidence of Dr. O.P Gupta (PW-4), he has clearly
proved that appellant suffered 13% permanent disability and at the time
of incident the wages as per the notification annexed with revised
guidelines of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority were
Rs.7125/- without adding D.A for un-skilled labourer. But, the Tribunal
has assessed the monthly income only Rs.6,000/- and reduced the
disability from 13% to 10% so, the award amount be enhanced.
9. On the basis of same guidelines, the Rajaram in (MA
No.4009/2019), learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in
this case the claimant was dashed and he was hospitalized. The appellant
has incurred medical expenses and grievous injuries but, the Tribunal has
awarded lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- only. The Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation amount for the loss of income while he was
under treatment. Thus, the claim award be enhanced as per the minimum
wages.
10. Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company/respondent No.3 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income and no case for enhancement is made out hence, the
appeals be dismissed.
I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and heard the
parties.
11. In this case the Insurance Company has not filed any cross appeal
or separate appeal and has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal
regarding the accident. I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and
the evidence adduced by the appellant, the legal heirs of the deceased and
the injured claimants have clearly stated that the vehicle No.M.P-09-9CT-
2625 that was driven by respondent Ramesh Bamniya, rashly and
negligently and hit the deceased Prabhulal and also, dashed motorcycle of
Rajaram and Manish and as a result Prabhulal died, Rajaram and Manish
got injured.
12. From the documents of the chargesheet submitted alongwith Ex.P-
1 to P-24. This Court is satisfied that the findings regarding the incident,
death of the deceased Prabhulal and grievous injury to Manish and
Rajaram in this incident. The Insurance Company has not challenged the
findings of the Tribunal regarding the liability to pay the compensation
amount to claimants hence, this conclusion of the Tribunal is affirmed.
13. Considered the point of enhancement. I have gone through the
statement of witnesses and driving license Ex.P-25C of deceased
Prabhulal, in that the D.O.B of the deceased Prabhulal is mentioned as
17.09.1968. When the incident occurred on 06.10.2017, the age of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of Aadhar Card and her
wife Smt. Nandibai (AW-1) has stated that the deceased Prabhulal was 49
years old and to prove the fact that the deceased was a driver, the
claimants have examined Raju Rathore (AW-5). Thus, when the specific
documents of age is available and that is supported by the statement of
claimant herself the age of the deceased on the date of incident is
determined as 49 years.
14. The Tribunal has not found true, the fact that deceased Prabhulal
was a driver employed for Raju Rathore (AW-5). It appears that he was a
labourer and some time worked as a driver. Also, as he was having valid
license issued to drive LMV-NT HTV, but that was not renewed after
2012. Thus, The Tribunal has rightly assessed that he was not employed
as driver.
15. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis
of minimum wages paid to an un-skilled labourer Rs.6,000/- per month.
But as per the guidelines of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority minimum wages to unskilled labourers applicable during the
time of incident 06.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 were Rs.7,125/-. So, the
monthly income of the deceased is assessed Rs.7,125/-.
16. The deceased was below the age of 50 years therefore, the
principle of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi AIR
2017 SC 5157 and Kirti and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. (2021) ACJ 1 25% amount is added in the future prospect. As per the
judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation AIR 2009 SC
3104 the number of dependents are 5 hence, 1/4 of the above income
shall be deducted on the head of personal and living expenses and
multiplier of 13 will be applicable.
17. The claimants are also entitled Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and
has added Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of Estate as per the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra). The claimants as per the judgment of The New
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Somvati & Ors. (2020) 01 ACJ 2321
are entitled for the spousal, parental and filial consortium thus, each
claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium. On that basis
the claim amount to be payable to claimants shall be as under:-
Monthly Income of the deceased = 7125 x 12 = Rs. 85,500/-
Add 25% Future Prospect = 21375/-
Annual Income 85,500 + 21375
= 106875/-
Deduction of 1/4 on living and 106875 - 26718.75
personal expenses = 80,156.25/-
Loss of Dependency 80,156.25 x 13 = 1042031.25
= @ 1042031/-
Funeral Expenses + 15,000/-
Loss of Estate + 15,000/-
Loss of consortium:
Spousal consortium + 40,000/-
Parental consortium for each child 80,000/- (40,000 x 2)
+
80,000/- (40,000 x 2)
Filial consortium +
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARD Rs. 12,72,031/-
Difference Amount: 12,72,031 - 9,47,500 = 3,24,531/-
18. Thus, the appellants/claimants in MA No.4003/2019 are entitled
for enhanced amount of Rs.3,24,531/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty
Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One only).
19. Thus, from the above discussion the appellant legal heirs of the
deceased Prabhulal are entitled for the amount of Rs.12,72,031/- and
therefore, the claim amount is enhanced by Rs.3,24,531/-. On this amount
they are entitled for simple interest @ 7% p.a from the date of
application till the enhanced amount is deposited before the Tribunal. On
amount being deposited the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in the
same ration and conditions as per the original award.
20. I have gone through the record of the appellant Rajaram the
Tribunal in this case it is not proved that due to accident Rajaram has got
any fracture or grievous injury and he has also not examined himself
before the medical expert to prove that due to this incident he got any
permanent disability and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,075/- on the head
of medical expenses and lump sum award of Rs.50,000/- thus, on the
head of pain and suffering separte diet and other heads thus, no case for
interfernce is made out. The appeal of the appellant Rajaram is dismissed.
21. The appeal of appellant Manish, I have gone through award. The
Tribunal has liberally awarded the claim amount so, except the head of
future loss of income due to accident no other head, the compensation
amount is liable to be enhanced. As per the award of the Claims Tribunal
the claimant has failed to prove that he is a skilled labourer and, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income on the basis of
unskilled labourers. But as discussed above on that relevant time the
minium wages notified as per the Madhya Pradesh Legal Services
Authority is Rs.7,125/-. So, the monthly income of the claimant is
determined as Rs.7,125/-. On this amount the appellant being the age of
22 years old, 40% future prospect is added in the income and multiplier
of 18 will be applicable. On that basis the claim amount payable to
claimant is as under:-
Income = 7,125/-
Add 40% Future Prospect = 2850/-
Monthly Income = 7,125 + 2850 = 9.975/-
Permanent Disability: 10%
Loss of income due to disability 9975 x 12 x18 x 10 / 100
= 2,15,460/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARD Rs. 2,15,460/-
Difference amount: 2,15,460 - 1,81,460 = 34000/-
22. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of
Rs.34,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand only).
23. The appellant Manish is entitled for the enhancement of
Rs.34,000/- and also entitled for simple interest @ 7% p.a from the date
of application till the enhanced amount is deposited before the Tribunal.
On amount being deposited the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in the
same ration and conditions as per the original award.
24. The respondent/Insurance company shall bear the costs of the
appeal. Thus, with the above directions these Misc. Appeals are disposed
of.
25. With the copy of this order the record of the trial Court as well as
appellate Court be returned back.
26. A copy of this order be placed in the other connected matters.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA )
JUDGE
akanksha
