Santosh Jatav vs Panjab Singh Jatav
2024 Latest Caselaw 30 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh Jatav vs Panjab Singh Jatav on 2 January, 2024

Author: Sunita Yadav

Bench: Sunita Yadav

                                                     1
                          IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                          ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 721 of 2015

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.     SUKHDEVI W/O SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, AGED
                         ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAM SANORA, TEHSIL AND
                         DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                         2.   ARVIND KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI HARIRAM
                         AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM
                         SANORA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY MR. AKHLESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    PANJAB SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI MANPHOOL
                               J A T A V GRAM     VINDWA    CHAMBAL
                               SARAYCHHOLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    SIRNAAM SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI LAYAKRAM
                               SINGH OCCUPATION: NA SHOBHARAMPURA,
                               CHAK BHANKARI, THANA RITHOURA, JILA
                               MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
                               LIMITED SURANA BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                         (MR. B.N. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 -
                         INSURANCE COMPANY)

                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 722 of 2015

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SANTOSH JATAV S/O SHRI ARVIND JATAV R/O GRAM
                         SANORA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 1/3/2024
08:41:27 PM
                                                      2
                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                         (BY MR. AKHLESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    PANJAB SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI MANPHOOL
                               J A T AV GRAM VINDAVA CHAMBAL SAYAR
                               CHHOLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    SIRNAAM SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI LAYAKRAM
                               SINGH     GURJAR    OCCUPATION:     NA
                               SHOBHARAMPURA, CHAK BHANKARI, THANA
                               RITHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
                               LTD. SURANA BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                         (MR. B.N. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 -
                         INSURANCE COMPANY)

                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 723 of 2015

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SUKHDEVI S/O SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30
                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDURI R/O GRAM SANORA,
                         TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                         (BY MR. AKHLESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    PANJAB SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI MANPHOOL
                               J A T AV GRAM VINDAVA CHAMBAL SAYAR
                               CHHOLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    SIRNAM SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI LAYAKRAM
                               SINGH     GURJAR     OCCUPATION:    NA
                               SHOB HAR AM PUR CHAK    BHANKARI THANA
                               RITHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
                               L T D . SURANA BHAWAN MORENA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                         (MR. B.N. MALHOTRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 -
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 1/3/2024
08:41:27 PM
                                                             3
                         INSURANCE COMPANY)

                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                           JUDGMENT

Since common question of law is involved in aforesaid M.A. Nos. 721 of 2015, 722 of 2015 and 723 of 2015, therefore, they are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in M.A. No. 721 of 2015 are taken into consideration.

These appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 09.4.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (M.P.) in Claim Case Nos. 94/2014 filed by appellants of M.A. No. 721 of 2015, Claim Case No.95/2014 filed by appellant of M.A. No.723 of 2015 and Claim Case No.96/2014 filed by appellant of M.A. No. 722 of 2015 for grant of compensation on account of death of Achal Ahirwar and injuries sustained by Sukhdevi and Santosh Jatav in a road traffic accident occurred on 07.5.2014 involving offending vehicle Tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP06-AA-3572. At the time of accident, respondent No. 1 Panjab Singh Jatav was the driver and respondent No. 2 Sirnam Singh Gurjar was the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 - insurance company.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 - driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained absent before learned claims tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte.

Respondent No. 3 - Insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and at the time of accident, driver of the alleged offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license, therefore insurance company is not liable to pay the

compensation.

Learned claims tribunal after hearing the parties and going through the evidence available on record calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.62,500/- in Claim Case No.94/2014, Rs.41000/- in Claim Case No.95/2014 and Rs.6500/- in Claim Case No. 96/2014, however, dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants.

Learned counsel for the claimants argued that learned claims tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petitioners by observing that appellants - claimants failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. It is further argued that learned claims tribunal did not go through the record and the statements of the witnesses who corroborated the case that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. Further argument is that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has also been filed against respondent No. 1 - driver of the Tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP06-AA-3572 which shows the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Learned claims tribunal has also assessed the compensation on the lesser side, therefore, impugned award deserves to be set aside and just and proper compensation be granted to the appellants.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that learned claims tribunal on the basis of evidence available on record rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants - claimants, therefore, the appeal be dismissed having no merits.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

The claimant Sukhdevi has examined himself as AW-1 and corroborated her case in her oral evidence as well as filed documents of criminal case such as

FIR Ex.P-1, Spot Map Ex.P-3, Memo of Seizure Ex.P-5 and Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P-7 etc. pertaining to this accident.

AW-2 Santosh has also corroborated the statement of Sukhdevi and deposed that it was the driver of offending vehicle Tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP06-AA-3572 who by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the time of accident hit the motorcycle No.MP07-MK-1636 on account of which deceased Achal Ahirwar died whereas Sukhdevi and Santosh sustained injuries.

The insurance company has examined B.N. Dwivedi as DW-1. According to this witness, the offending vehicle is malafidely involved in connievance with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle just to get the compensation. This witness has proved statement of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC during investigation of the criminal case relating to this accident as per Ex.D-4. Even on the basis of documents filed by insurance company, it is found that eye-witness Bhupendra in his statement has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle Tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP06-AA-3572.

The Apex Court in the case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2018 AIR SC 1900 has held that in a case where charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle points out towards complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly.

The Apex Court in the caes of Kusum Lata and Ors. vs. Satbir and Ors.; 2011 ACJ 926 has held that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case qas it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The claimants are required to establish their case merely on the

touchstone of preponderance of probability.

In the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.; 2021 ACJ 17 it has been held that strict principles of evidence and standard of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in motor accident claim cases. Standard of proof in this is preponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The same view has also been adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Vimla Devi & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; 2019 ACJ 454 and it has been held that strict proof on accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.

In this case, the driver of the offending vehicle has not appeared before learned claims tribunal to contradict the version of the claimants. Under these circumstances, learned claims tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of

the claimant witnesses.

In view of the above discussions, the findings of the learned claims tribunal that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident is found to be against the settled principle of law and evidence on record, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 09.4.2015 passed in Claim Case Nos. 94/2014, 95/20145 and 96/2014.

Now the question before this Court is whether the learned claims tribunal has calculated just and proper compensation?

This case was filed for compensation on account of death of deceased Achal Ahirwar.

Learned claims tribunal on the basis of postmortem report has rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 8 years at the time of accident, however, the compensation was calculated on the lesser side.

In the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014) 1 SCC 244, Hon'ble Apex Court treated the notional income of deceased child at Rs. 30,000/- as including future prospects in place of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act and applying the multiplier as specified in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Therefore, in view of the case law of Kishan Gopal (supra), National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; 2017 ACJ 2700 and Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), considering the notional income of the deceased child to be Rs.30,000/- multiplier of 17 looking to the age of mother of the child to be 30 years and Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, total compensation amount comes to Rs.5,80,000/- [(30000X17) 70000].

As such, claimants of Claim Case No.94/2014 (appellants in M.A. No.721 of 2015) are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Thousand only).

The compensation amount Rs.41000/- in Claim Case No.95/2014 and Rs.6500/- in Claim Case No. 96/2014 calculated by learned claims tribunal are found to be just and proper and no interference is warranted in the same.

Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants of the respective claim petitions along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The compensation amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order.

If the compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the claimant within four weeks' from today and proof thereof shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.

Appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of. Original copy of this order be kept in M.A. No. 721 of 2015 and a certified copy of this judgment be kept in connected M.A. Nos. 722 of 2015 and 723 of 2015.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE AKS