United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Ina
2024 Latest Caselaw 4316 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Ina on 15 February, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                            1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                 MISC. APPEAL No. 279 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE COMPANY, OFFICE AT PATNI COMPLEX
PARASIYA ROAD, CHHINDWARA, P.S., TEHSIL AND
DISTT. CHHATARPUR, M.P. (INSURER, BUS NO.MP-04-
PA-2385) THROUGH INCHARGE TP HUB JABALPUR, 1454,
RAJKIRAN BUILDING, IST FLOOR, WRIGHT TOWN,
JABALPUR 482 002 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ABHINAV TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    SMT. INA, WD/O LATE BALLU       @   RAJESH
      GONEKAR, AGED 27 YEARS,

2.    KU ANKITA, D/O LATE B A L L U @     RAJESH
      GONEKAR, AGED 3 YEARS,

3.    KU SADHNA, D/O LATE B A L L U @     RAJESH
      GONEKAR, AGED 8 MONTHS,

      RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR,
      THR OUGH THEIR  NATURAL GUAR D IAN AND
      BEST FRIEND MOTHER SMT. INA, WD/0 LATE
      BALLU ALIAS RAJESH GONEKAR, AGED 27
      YEARS.

4.    MU RAKHIYA BAI W/O MANIKLAL GONEKAR,
      AGED 50 YEARS,

5.    MANIKLAL S/O SUKKAD GONEKAR, AGED 55
      YEARS,

      ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SUSSRAI PINDRAI
      WARD NO 2 PINDRAIKALAN P S CHAND TEHSIL
      AND   DISTRICT   CHHINDWARA    (MADHYA
                                    2
      PRADESH)

6.    SHIVPRASAD, S/O MOTILAL JAISWAL, AGED
      ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BADIYAKHEDI
      SEHORE, PS TEHS I L AND DISTRICT SEHORE
      (MADHYA PRADESH) (DRIVER OF BUS NO.MP-04-
      PA-2385)

7.    SUBHASHCHANDRA JAIN, S/O LATE DAYACHAND
      JAIN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O A-206,
      SHAHPURA NEAR MANISH MARKET BHOPAL
      TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH) (OWNER OF BUS NO.MP-04-PA-2385)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 BY SHRI NASIR ALI - ADVOCATE - AND
RESPONDENT NO.7 BY SHRI U. S. JAISWAL - ADVOCATE)

      Reserved on       : 25.01.2024

      Pronounced on: 15.02.2024

      This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                          ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurance company to challenge the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Chhindwara, on 27.9.2017 in MACC No.2500034/16. The short point in the case is that compensation awarded under the heads of "Consortium", "Funeral Expenses" and "Loss of Love and Affection" are in contravention with the principles settled under various cases.

2. The facts of the case are that 30-year-old Ballu alias Rakesh died in a motor accident, which was the result of rash and negligent driving of a bus by respondent no.6; the wife, children and the parents of deceased (respondent nos.1 to 5) filed a claim case before the Tribunal which was allowed for a

compensation amount of Rs.10,91,188/- along with interest and litigation costs; for assessment of compensation, consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded to the wife of deceased, Rs.25,000/- was awarded under the head of "Funeral" and Rs.10,000/- under the head of "Loss of Estate"; further Rs.50,000/- each were awarded to the two children of deceased under the head of "Loss of Love and Affection".

3. The grounds raised in this appeal are that the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of "Consortium", "Funeral Expenses" and "Loss of Love and Affection" are in contravention with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [SLP (Civil) No.25590/2014]; in the light of that decision, Rs.40,000/- should have been awarded for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate; it is submitted that under the conventional heads an amount of Rs.70,000/- was awarded in excess to the amount permitted under the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra); further it was a head-on collusion, therefore liability should have been saddled in the ratio of 50-50 per cent on both the vehicles; for assessing the income of deceased, the Collector rates cannot be blindly accepted as a benchmark. It is, therefore, prayed that the amount of compensation be reduced as per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

4. The miscellaneous appeal has been opposed by respondent nos.1 to 5 claiming that the award is justified and does not warrant any interference.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the record of the Tribunal has been perused.

6 . The impugned award reveals that the defence of contributory negligence was raised before the Tribunal but no evidence was led either by the

owner/driver of the offending vehicle or the insurance company to prove the contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is mentioned in para 12 of the award that the driver of offending bus did not appear as a witness to establish that the motorcycle driver was negligent on his part and his negligence was absolutely or partially responsible for the accident to happen. The negligence of bus driver, namely respondent no.6, was proved before the Tribunal by Sanju Gonekar (A.W.2), who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle which met with the accident resulting into the death of its driver, namely Ballu alias Rakesh. Thus, the plea raised in this appeal about the contributory negligence on the part of deceased cannot be accepted in the absence of material evidence to that effect.

7 . The insurance company has challenged the award on the counts of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection and for this, reliance has been placed on the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It may be relevant to note here that the said judgment approved compensation on future prospects and for this, the parameters were laid down in the judgment but no compensation was awarded under the head of "Future Prospects" in the impugned award. It cannot be successfully argued here that cumbersome liability should be fastened and the beneficial relief should be ignored.

8 . By the time this appeal has come up for final hearing, two new judgments of the Apex Court are holding the ground now and they are - United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram and others (2018) 18

SCC 130. These two judgments have elaborately discussed the assessment of compensation under the head of "Loss of Consortium" and has approved spousal consortium for spouse of deceased, parental consortium for the parents of deceased and filial consortium for the children of deceased and under these citations, Rs.40,000/- have been approved individually for spouse, parents and children of deceased. If we apply the principles laid down in these decisions for calculating the amount under the head of "Loss of Consortium"

then the widow of deceased, the two children of deceased and the parents of deceased are entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- collectively under this head and the learned Tribunal has awarded collectively only Rs.2,00,000/- under the heads of "Loss of Consortium" and "Loss of Love and Affection". Thus, this court finds no illegality in the impugned award in calculation of this amount.

9. The case of Pranay Sethi (supra) permitted Rs.15,000/- under the head of "Funeral Expenses" and further Rs.15,000/- under the head of "Loss of Estate". In the present case, the amount awarded under these two heads is collectively Rs.35,000/-, which is merely Rs.5,000/- in addition to what was permissible under the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). As has been discussed earlier, no amount under the head of "Future Prospects" permitted by the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) was awarded in the present case. Therefore, for a meager Rs.5,000/- under the head of "Funeral Expenses", this court is not inclined to interfere in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

10. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. It is directed that the compensation awarded under the impugned award shall be paid to respondent nos.1 to 5 within a period of one month, if not paid so far and the award amount shall entail interest at 9% per annum from the date of this decision, until realization, if not paid within the period of one month.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Date: 2024.02.15 17:06:38 +05'30'