Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajani Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28 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 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 149 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RAJANI YADAV W/O SHRI REVARAM YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, IN FRONT OF VAKEEL
SAHAB SHARAD YADAV GHAMAPUR TAHSIL AND
DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P. MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THE
NEW INDIA INSU. CO.LTD. 290 C NAPIER TOWN
JABALPUR DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI VINOD JAIN @ MUNNA S/O NOT KNOWN
MAHAPAUR WARD KALI CHOWK SEONI (M.P.)
(OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE)
3. REVARAM YADAV S/O NANHE YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, IN FRONT OF VAKEEL SAHAB
SHARAD YADAV GHAMAPUR TAHSIL AND DISTT.
JABALPUR (M.P.) (DEAD)
4. SANDEEP YADAV S/O REVARAM YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, IN FRONT OF VAKEEL SAHAB
SHARAD YADAV GHAMAPUR TAHSIL AND DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUDHIR YADAV S/O REVARAM YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, IN FRONT OF VAKEEL SAHAB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 3/4/2024
11:49:28 AM
2
SHARAD YADAV GHAMAPUR TAHSIL AND DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KULDEEP YADAV S/O REVARAM YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, IN FRONT OF VAKEEL
SAHAB SHARAD YADAV GHAMAPUR TAHSIL AND
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. RITIKA CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(SHRI VAIBHAV 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 appellant/claimant for
enhancement of awarded amount under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the award dated 09.04.2021 passed by Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.272/2014 by
which the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.854200/-
(Eight Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred) with interest @
7.5% per annum to the claimant for the death of Pradeep Yadav who
died in motor vehicle accident.
2. According to claimant, 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 02.03.2014 deceased
Pradeep Yadav aged 30 years, met with a motor vehicle accident and
died, giving rise to file claim petition by legal representatives
(appellant 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 854200/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty
Four Thousand Two Hundred) as compensation, breakup of which is
as under :-
Rs.809200/- Towards loss of dependency.
Rs.15,000/- Towards filial consortium
Rs.15,000/- Towards pain and suffering
Rs.15,000/- Towards funeral expenses
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the learned
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.4250/- (Four
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) 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. Thus, learned tribunal
assessed the yearly income of deceased as Rs.71400/- (Seventy One
Thousand Four Hundred). Learned tribunal after deducting 1/3
towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 17 keeping in
view the age of deceased and assessed the amount of loss of
dependency as Rs.809200/- (Eight Lakhs Nine Thousand Two
Hundred). Learned counsel submits that the incident is of the year
2014, so the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal
as Rs.4250/- (Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) is on lower side,
which should be Rs.5520/- (Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty).
Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal has not awarded
just and proper amount under the conventional heads. In view of
above, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal be
allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced substantially.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly
submitted that the deceased was unmarried, hence, the tribunal ought
to have deducted 1/2 of the assessed income towards personal
expenses of the deceased in place of 1/3. Since there was no proof of
income of the deceased, hence the tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the deceased, hence, no case for enhancement is made out.
On these grounds prayed for reduction of the award amount.
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 wrongly deducted 1/3
towards personal expenses which should have been 1/2. The income
of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.4250/- (Four
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) for an incident which took place in the
year 2014 appears to be on lower side, which should be Rs.5520/-
(Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty) as per the Minimum Wages
Act. 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 at
Rs.5520/- (Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty) per month 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.92736/- (Ninety Two Thousand
Seven Hundred Thirty Six). 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal
expenses from the yearly income, which comes to Rs.46368/- (Fourty
Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Eight) and after applying
multiplier of 17 keeping in view the age of deceased, amount towards
loss of dependency comes to Rs.788256/- (Seven Lakhs Eighty Eight
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six). It reveals from the impugned
award that the tribunal has awarded Rs.15000/- (Fifteen Thousand)
under the head of filial consortium which is on lower side, hence the
same is enhanced to Rs.40000 (Forty Thousand) keeping in view the
principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra).
9. It appears from the record that the learned tribunal has awarded
just and proper compensation under other conventional heads which
needs no interference. Thus, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled
for the following amount of compensation :-
Rs.788256/- Towards loss of dependency
Rs.40,000/- Towards filial consortium to mother
Rs.15,000/- Towards loss of estate
Rs.15,000/- Towards funeral expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rs.858256/- Total
--------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total sum of
Rs.858256/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
Six) instead of Rs.854200/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Two
Hundred). The enhanced amount of Rs.4056/- (Four Thousand Fifty
Six) 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. With the aforesaid, Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
@s
