Sahaj Bai Basor vs Monu Kumar Patel
2024 Latest Caselaw 12712 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sahaj Bai Basor vs Monu Kumar Patel on 6 May, 2024

                                                       1
                            IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                              ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            MISC. APPEAL No. 5510 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SAHAJ BAI BASOR W/O LATE MADAN LAL, AGED
                                 ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
                                 ..R/O WARD NO. 3 KHAMHARIYA POLICES
                                 STATION BAKAL THE BAHORIBAND KATNI
                                 DISTIRCT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MASTER SANJAY BASOR S/O LATE MADAN LAL,
                                 AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
                                 THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
                                 APPELLANT NO.1 R/O WARD NO.3 KHAMHARIYA
                                 P.S. BAKAL THE BAHORIBAND KATNI DISTRICT
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    MASTER SUSHIL KUMAR S/O LATE MADAN LAL,
                                 AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
                                 THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
                                 APPELLANT NO.1 R/O WARD NO.3 KHAMHARIYA
                                 P.S. BAKAL THE BAHORIBAND KATNI DISTRICT
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    MASTER MANUSHU BASOR S/O LATE MADAN
                                 LAL, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 MINOR    THROUGH    NATURAL     GUARDIAN
                                 MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 R/O WARD NO.3
                                 KHAMHARIYA P.S. BAKAL THE BAHORIBAND
                                 KATNI DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI NITESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

                           AND
                           1.    MONU KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI BALRAM PATEL,
                                 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
                                 VILLAGE MADAI POLICESTATION SIHORA
                                 TEHSIL MAJHAULI DISTRICT JABALPUR AT
                                 PRESENT C/O PRAKASH PANDEY S/O SHRI A.N.
                                 PANDEY ..R/O PAHERWA POLICE STATION
                                 KHITAULA TEHSIL SIHORA DISTIRCT JABALPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-05-2024
18:27:20
                                                             2
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PRAKASH PANDEY S/O SHRI A.N. PANDEY, AGED
                                 ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 13 PAHREWA
                                 P.S. KHITAULA SIHORA TEHSIL SIHORA DISTRICT
                                 JABALPUR (OWNER VEHICLE OF VEHICLE NO.
                                 C.G.04 E 2933) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                                 LTD . OFFICE 495 MADHATAL KARAM CCHAND
                                 CAHAUK JABALPUR TEHSIL AND JABALPUR
                                 (INSURANCE COMPANY OF VEHICLE) (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SMT. AMRIT KAUR RUPRAH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

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

                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed being aggrieved with the impugned award passed in MACC No.566/2022 by the Member of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katni vide order dated 01.07.2023 for enhancement on the ground that the Claim Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased in lower side. As the witnesses Sahaj Bai (PW-1) and Rohit Rajak (PW-3) have clearly stated that the deceased was working as welder and also operated leth machine and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Tribunal has wrongly held the income of the deceased Rs.7,000/- and the Claim Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4th of the monthly income as the dependents of the deceased were four. In the head of the personal and living expenses 1/5th deduction is proper. The Tribunal has also wrongly added 40% in the future prospect whereas that should be 50%, hence, the amount of compensation be enhanced Rs.4,00,000/- with the interest of 18% per annum.

2. With the consent of the parties, the argument heard on the merit of the case.

3 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has submitted that the trial Court has passed the appropriate order and awarded the appropriate amount, no interference is called for, hence, the appeal be dismissed.

4. As a matter of accident the liability of the respondents is not disputed, hence, this Court is not going on that point. It is also clear that Insurance Company failed before the Claim Tribunal to prove any breach of the Insurance Policy, hence, this Court has examined only on the income of the deceased and amount that should be awarded in the future prospect and deduction in the head of living and personal expenses.

5. The Claim Tribunal has relied on the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 (SC) 3104 and for future prospect the Claim Tribunal has relied on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shethis and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and Hemraj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2018 ACJ 5.

6. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident that has been assessed by the Claim Tribunal is 35 years and the number of dependents are 4

and from the cross examination of the witness Sahaj Bai (PW-1) where she has stated that her husband was earning Rs.1000/- - Rs.1200/- per day from the welding work. In para-6 of her cross examination she has stated that he was offered to work daily basis. In para-7 she has further stated that her husband worked daily and he was working in a shop but she has not disclosed in which

shop he was working and he was getting the wages on the daily basis, hence,

the statement of the witness Rohit Rajak (PW-3) becomes doubtful, that the deceased was working in his shop as a regular employee and Rohit Rajak (PW-

3) in his cross-examination has also stated that his welding shop was not registered.

7. Looking to the above facts, it appears that the deceased was working as a daily basis as and where got the job but Claim Tribunal has assessed only the income of the deceased Rs.7000/- where as just before the time of the death of the deceased, the minimum wages paid to unskilled labourer by the State Government Authorities was fixed Rs.8,800/- per month and on that basis the income of the deceased assessed Rs.8,800/- per month.

8. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shethis (supra) and in the case of Hemraj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others (supra) where the person is self employed or working in the fixed salary not in permanent job and the deceased is less than 40 years of age, the 40% of the income shall be added in the future prospect and the Claim Tribunal has rightly added 40% amount in the head of future prospect and as per the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra), the Apex Court has held that where the deceased is married and there are 4 to 6 dependents on him then the 1/4th of the income shall be deducted in the head of personal and living expenses. The 1/5th amount is deducted only in the case where number of dependents is more than

6. Thus Claim Tribunal has rightly deducted the amount in the head of personal and living expenses and the Claim Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of the 16.

9. From the above basis if the loss of dependency is calculated, monthly

income of the deceased comes Rs.8,800/-, 40% added in the future prospect (Rs.2,200/-), thus the monthly income comes to Rs.8,800/- Rs.2,200/- = Rs.11,000/-. On deducting the 1/4th amount in head of personal and living expenses (Rs.2,750/-). The monthly loss of the dependency will be Rs.8,250/- and applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,250/-x12x16= Rs.15,84,000/-

10. The claim Tribunal has already awarded Rs.14,11,000/- on the above head thus Rs.1,73,000/- amount is enhanced in the loss of dependency. On the other heads, the amount awarded by the Claim Tribunal is affirmed.

11. Thus, affirming the award of the Claim Tribunal on the head of the loss of dependency amount of Rs.1,73,000/- is enhanced.

12. Claimant shall be entitled for a simple interest @6% from the dated of application i.e. 11.09.2023 till the enhanced amount is deposited before the Claim Tribunal.

13. Insurance Company shall bear the cost of claim petition as well as of this appeal in proportion to the enhanced amount. Memo of the cost be prepared.

14. A copy of this order along with record be sent back to the Claim Tribunal for information and necessary action.

15. Record of this case be consigned to the Record Room.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE DPS