Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Seema Bai vs Kamlesh Kumar Bairagi on 26 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 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2966 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SEEMA BAI W/O LATE MUKESH MARAWI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
2. KU. ANJALI D/O LATE MUKESH MARAWI,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. SEEMA BAI WIFE OF LATE MUKESH
MARAWI AGED 20 YEARS
3. KESARI S/O SHRI DEVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS
4. KATTO BAI W/O KESARI (NOW DEAD)
ALL RESIDENT OF GRAM NIVARI THANA BIJADANDI
DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. PRIYANKA TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. KAMLESH KUMAR BAIRAGI D/O BRHAM DAS
BAIRAGI RESIDENT OF VIJAYPUR, POST- LAVAR,
GAUR NADI, BARELA ROAD DISTRICT JABALPUR,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. H.D.F.C. AGRO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE IN FRONT OF
AAYKAR OFFICE, NAPIER TOWN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 09.01.2024)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 2/28/2024
6:05:55 PM
2
( SHRI RAKESH JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against
the award dated 13.01.2022 passed by 22nd Additional MACT, Jabalpur by
which the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,68,000/-
(Twelve Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum to
the claimants for the death of Mukesh Maravi, 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. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 21.07.2016, Mukesh
Maravi, aged 23 years met with a motor vehicle accident and died, giving
rise to file claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein), out of
which this appeal arises seeking enhancement of compensation for the
death of the deceased. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties
adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed
the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of
Rs.12,68,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand) as compensation,
breakup of which is as under :-
Towards loss of dependency Rs.10,71,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
Towards consortium Rs.44,000/-
Towards love & affection of father
to appellants No.2 Rs.40,000/-
Towards filial consortium to
appellants No.3 and 4 Rs.80,000/-
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged any of the
findings of the tribunal except the assessment of income of the deceased. It
is submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased @ Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) per month which should have
been Rs.6,850/- (Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) per month as per
Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of incident. It is prayed that
the appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.6,850/- (Six Thousand Eight Hundred
Fifty) per month as per Minimum Wages Act.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
submitted that the learned tribunal has deduced 1/4 towards personal
expenses which should have been 1/3 as the father of the deceased should
not have been considered dependent on the deceased. It is further
submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher
side and no case for enhancement is made out.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-
(Five Thousand) per month, however, the income of deceased assessed for
an incident which took place in the year 2016 appears to be on lower side,
which should be Rs.6,850/- (Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) as per
Minimum Wages Act. Further, from perusal of record it is evident that the
deceased was married. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/4 towards
personal expenses considering father of the deceased to be also dependent
on the deceased which is erroneous. Hence, 1/3 ought to have been
deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
Keeping in view the age of deceased, multiplier of 17 appears to be just
and proper. Thus, when the income of the deceased is taken into
consideration as Rs.6,850/- (Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) and 40%
is added towards future prospects keeping in view the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, yearly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.1,15,080/- (One Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Eighty).
After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses from the yearly income, it
comes to Rs.76,720/- (Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) and
after applying multiplier of 17 keeping in view the age of deceased,
amount towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,04,240/- (Thirteen
Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty). On other heads amount
awarded appears to be just and proper. Thus, the appellants/claimants shall
be entitled for the following amount of compensation :-
Towards loss of dependency Rs.13,04,240/-
Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
Towards consortium Rs.44,000/-
Towards parental consortium
to appellants No.2 Rs.44,000/-
Towards filial consortium to parents
i.e. appellants No.3. Rs.44,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 14,69,240/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total sum of
Rs.14,69,240/- (Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty)
instead of Rs.12,68,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand). The
enhanced amount of Rs.2,01,240/- (Two Lakhs One Thousand Two
Hundred Forty) shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application
till the date of payment. The payment of enhanced amount be made within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
10. With the aforesaid, appeal is disposed of.
11. Let the record of the Tribunal be sent back alongwith copy of this
order for information and necessary compliance.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
@s
