Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nirasha Pandey vs Rohit Kumar Kewat on 28 February, 2024

Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani

Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2508 of 2022
BETWEEN:-

1. NIRASHA PANDEY W/O SHRI RAMAKANT
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

2. RAMAKANT PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI BANSPATI
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3. LAXMIKANT PANDEY S/O SHRI RAMAKANT
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

4. KU. ANKITA PANDEY D/O SHRI ADITYA PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMUNI P.S. PAPONDH
TEHSIL BEOHARI DISTT. SHAHDOL (M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND

1. ROHIT KUMAR KEWAT S/O BHEEM SEN
KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KUMARHA POLICE STATION NAIGARHI TEHSIL
MAUGANJ DISTRICT REWA M.P. (DRIVER OF
OFFENDING VEHICLE TRUCK NO. MP-18-GA/3545)

2. JITENDRA SINGH S/O L. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE WARD NO. 1 SOHAGPUR
AMARKANTAK ROAD BUDHAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL
M.P. (OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE TRUCK NO.
MP-18-GA/3545)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 3/5/2024
7:44:19 PM
2

3. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE BUDHAR ROAD
SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL M.P. (INSURANCE
COMPANY OF OFFENDING VEHICLE TRUCK NO. MP-
18-GA/3545)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 THOUGH SERVED )
( APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED BY REGISTRAR J-I )
( SHRI G. C. SOHANE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER

Heard on admission.

Admit.

With the consent of parties, heard final arguments. The appellants/claimants have filed this Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation amount being aggrieved with the award dated 28.07.2021 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beohari Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) in MACC No.54/2018 by which the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of 801400/- (Eight Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred) with 6% interest to the appellants/claimants by way of compensation for the death of deceased Neeraj Pandey who died in a motor 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 24.02.2018, Neeraj Pandey aged 22 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 his death. 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.8,01,400/- (Eight Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred) as compensation, breakup of which is as under :-

                                 Towards loss of dependency           Rs.680400/-
                                 Towards filial consortium            Rs.88000/-
                                 to mother and father
                                 Towards funeral expenses             Rs.16500/-
                                 Towards loss of estate               Rs.16500/-

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.4500/- (Four Thousand Five Hundred) per month and added 40% 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. Learned tribunal after deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 keeping in view the age 22 years of deceased and assessed the amount of loss of dependency as Rs.680400/- (Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand Four Hundred). Learned counsel submits that the incident is of the year 2018, so the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.4500/- (Four Thousand Five Hundred) is on lower side, which should be Rs.7,125/- (Seven thousand one hundred twenty five) as per the Minimum Wages Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned tribunal has also not awarded just and proper amount under the conventional heads in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In view of above, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of record it is evident that the deceased was unmarried, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses. However, it appears that the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.4500/- (Four Thousand Five Hundred) for an incident which took place in the year 2018 appears to be on lower side, which should be Rs.7,125/- (Seven thousand one

hundred twenty five). Keeping in view the aged of deceased, multiplier of 18 also appears to be just and proper. Thus, when the income of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.7,125/- (Seven thousand one hundred twenty five) and 40% is added towards future prospects keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,19,700/- (One Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred). 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal expenses from the yearly income, which comes to Rs.59,850/- (Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) and after applying multiplier of 18 keeping in view the age of deceased, amount towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,77,300/- (Ten Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred).

9. It reveals from the impugned award that the tribunal has awarded Rs.88000/- towards filial consortium to mother and father (44000x2), Rs.16500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.16500/- towards loss of estate which also appears to be just and proper under the conventional heads keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 59.8 of the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the amount awarded under the conventional heads. Thus, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation :-

Rs.10,77,300/- Towards loss of dependency Rs.16,500/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of estate Rs.88,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium to parents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rs.11,98,300/- Total

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.11,98,300/- (Eleven Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred) instead of Rs.8,01,400/- (Eight Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred). The enhanced amount of Rs.396900/- (Three Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred) 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.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has valued the appeal as Rs.360000/- (Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand) and paid the Court fee as per valuation, therefore, appellant is directed to pay the Court fee on additional amount of Rs.36900/- (Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred) also within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the Court fee is not paid within the stipulated period, then this order will be restricted only up to the amount of Rs.360000/- (Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand) .

12. With the aforesaid, Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

13. Records of the claims Tribunal be sent back alongwith the copy of this order for information and necessary compliance.

No order as to costs.

(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) JUDGE