Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ditya vs Rajesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1672 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
DITYA S/O RADU BHURIYA BHIL, AGED ABOUT 45
YE A R S , BHATANKUAN, TEH. PETLAWAD, DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI MANISH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT) .
AND
1. RAJESH S/O MANOHARLAL JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TRUCK DRIVER
LUNHERA, THANA SAGORE, TEH. AND DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAHLAD SINGH S/O RS CHOUHAN OCCUPATION:
OWN ER AN BUSINESS R/O - BRANCH 2635 E,
SECTOR, SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE(MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH
O FFI CE INDORE AHMADABAD MARG, DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SURESH S/O MAHENDRASINGH SOLANKI, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
G R AM JHIRI THANA KALIDEVI DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BHUPENDRA S/O PUNAJI PAL OCCUPATION:
OWNER R/O - GRAM - JHIRI THANA KALIDEVI,
DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH
OFFICE NEAR MAIN POST OFFICE DIST. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 2/28/2024
12:27:36 PM
2
(SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 6)
SHRI NILESH MANORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
2]).
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act is arising out of the award dated 27.10.2017 passed by Additional Member,
MACT, Dhar in Claim Case No.1000107/2015 seeking enhancement of
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute
and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in
question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of Suraj, the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest.
The breakup of the compensation amount is as under:
HEAD AMOUNT
Loss of dependency -Rs.2,10,000/-
(i.e. Rs.2500x12=30000 - 1/2 personal expenses=15000x14
(multiplier))
Consortium -Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses -Rs.25,000/-
Loss of estate -Rs.5,000/-
--------------------
TOTAL Rs.3,40,000/-
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed
an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case as
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has
illegally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month only.
Even if there was no proof as regard the actual income of the deceased, the
same ought to have been assessed on the basis of the relevant circular regarding
minimum wages for an unskilled labour. The loss of future prospects has not
been taken into consideration while calculating the compensation in the light of
the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs
Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. The Tribunal has committed an
error in applying the multiplier of 16 in the case instead it ought to have been 18
considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident. Hence, prays for
awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued in
support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for
any interference by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
appellant. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2500/-
per month only for the reason that no document has been produced by the
appellant with regard to the income of the deceased. The accident was
occurred in the year 2012, therefore, considering the minimum wages for an
unskilled labour for the relevant period as per the circular issued by the Labour
Department, Govt. of M.P, the income of the deceased ought to have been
taken as Rs.4770/- per month. Apart from that, it is found that no
compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of
future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra). At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 17
years, therefore, considering the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), the loss of future prospects ought to have been assessed at 40%.
So far as multiplier is concerned, it ought to have been 18 in the case
considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident instead of 16 as
applied by the Tribunal.
7. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which deserves to
be enhanced as under:
HEAD AMOUNT
Loss of dependency -Rs.7,21,224/-
(i.e. Rs.4770+40% FP=6678x12=80136 - 1/2 personal
expenses=40068 x 18 (multiplier))
Loss of consortium -Rs.40,000/-
Funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate -Rs.15,000/-
-------------------
TOTAL Rs.7,91,224/-
8. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is
Rs.7,91,224/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.3,40,000/-.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,51,224/- over
and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation
amount by a sum of Rs.4,51,224/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at
the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the
Tribunal shall remain intact.
10. The appellant has valued the appeal only to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs and
paid the Court fee accordingly, however, for the remaining amount, the Court
fee shall be paid by the appellant within a period of one month and thereafter the
amount shall be released by the Insurance Company on receiving the
certificate. In case the certificate has not been filed before the Insurance
Company up to a period of three months, the claimant shall not be entitled to
receive the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and to the extent indicated
herein above.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
hk/
