Madhya Pradesh High Court
Beti Bai vs R. Sai Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4027 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. BETI BAI W/O LATE NONELAL SEN, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMHORI BEEKA P.S. CIVIL
LINE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. LAKHAN S/O LATE NONELAL SEN, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMHORI BEEKA P.S. CIVIL
LINE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ASHARAM S/O LATE NONELAL SEN, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMHORI BEEKA P.S. CIVIL
LINE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BRAJENDRA S/O LATE NONELAL SEN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMHORI BEEKA P.S. CIVIL
LINE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 2/15/2024
10:33:56 AM
2
1. R. SAI LOGISTIC INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH
PROPRIETOR ROHIT SINGH TOMAR 603/604 VIPUL
TRADE CENTER SECTOR 48 SOHNA ROAD GURGAON
HARYANA.
2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER NEAR
RAILWAY STATION DISTRICT SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI SANJEEV NEEKHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 -
INSURANCE COMPANY )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
Admit.
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for
enhancement of awarded amount under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the award dated 11.01.2020 passed by Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar M.P. in MACC No.231/2018,
by which the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 31,31,675/-
(Thirty One Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five)
with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants for the death of
Nonelal, who died in motor vehicle accident.
2. According to claimants, the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, hence need 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, 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. Learned counsel for the appellants by drawing attention of this
Court towards para 19 of the impugned award submitted that the
tribunal while assessing income of the deceased has deducted
travelling allowance, risk allowance and uniform washing allowance
from the salary of the deceased holding that the deceased was given
the benefit of the said allowances but his dependants were not entitled
for the benefit of the same. It is contended that such finding of the
tribunal is erroneous and no such deductions ought to have been made
from the salary of the deceased. No other findings of the tribunal has
been challenged by the learned counsel during his arguments. Learned
counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal be allowed and
amount of compensation be enhanced accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
has opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. It is true that the deceased was getting travelling allowance, risk
allowance and uniform washing allowance in additional to his salary
but all such allowances were received by him personally and his
dependents are not the beneficiaries for such allowances as the same
are the allowances of distinct category, hence, the tribunal has rightly
excluded the said allowances from the salary of the deceased for
assessing his annual income. Thus, no illegality or perversity is found in
the impugned award.
8. In view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned
award. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
9. Appellants shall bear the cost of this appeal.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
@s
