Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mus Sushila Bari on 9 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 09 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 182 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHAURASIYA COMPLEX
SEMARIYA CHOWK REWA ROAD SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SMT. AMRIT RUPRAH- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUS SUSHILA BARI W/O LATE RAMNARAYAN
BARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O WARD NO., 3,
GADHIYA TOLA, SATNA P. S. CIVIL LINE TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. MAMTA @ SHEELU BARI D/O LATE
RAMNARAYAN BAI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O
WARD NO. 3, GADHIYA TOLA, SATNA, PS CIVIL
L I N E , TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NEELESH BARI S/O LATE RAMNARAYAN BARI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEAR S , R/O WARD NO. 3,
GADHIYA TOLA, SATNA, PS CIVIL LINE, TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SURYAMANI TRIPATHI S/O S.K. TRIPATHI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEAR S, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
RAJENDRA NAGAR, LANE NO. 5, SATNA. (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. GYANENDRA KUMAR PANDEY S/O S.P. PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OWNER
R/O PANNA NAKA UMRI, PS CIVIL LINES, SATNA,
DISTRICT SATNA. (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 5/10/2024
11:45:21 AM
2
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3.
)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 10-04-2024
PRONOUNCED ON :- 09-05-2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
1 . This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred being aggrieved with the award passed
by the 8th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna passed
in MACT Case No. 3400668/16 dated 06-09-2018, by which the compensation
has been awarded to the LRs' of deceased Ramnarayan Bari, who died in
vehicular accident occurred on 23-08-2016.
2. In nutshell, the case of the claimants before the Claims Tribunal was
that on 23-08-2016 at about 7:30 AM, the deceased Ramnarayan on his
motorcycle was going from Dwari, Satna to Civil Lines Satna, when he reached
bear Ghonti Tower Satna, the driver of the offending car MP-19CA-8423 hit the
motor-cycle from behind, as a result of which, Ramnarayan fell from the vehicle
and sustained injuries. He was brought to District Hospital, Satna for first-aid.
The condition being critical, he was referred to Jabalpur and on that he was
admitted to the Apex Hospital and Research Center, Jabalpur from 23-08-2016
to 25-08-2016 in Intensive Care Unit and when the doctors told that he cannot
be cured on 25-08-2016, the relatives were bringing back the deceased to Satna,
he died on the way to Satna. A criminal case was registered. The deceased was
working as driver in District Treasury and earning Rs.38,342/- salary per month
and was 59 years old and on that basis the claim was filed.
3 . The Claims Tribunal after the reply by the Insurance Company
framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties and awarded the
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the case
is totally forged, filed with collusion of the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle and the case was falsely registered against the vehicle and submitted that
the FIR was extremely belated. The MLC was conducted on 09-10-2016
whereas the post mortem report is of 26-08-2016, which is an impossibility. In
the MLC report, the doctor has mentioned that the deceased has given the
history of accident that he himself had fallen down from his motor-cycle. Thus,
no other vehicle particularly car was involved in the accident.
5 . In this case, the accident was said to have been occurred on 25-08-
2016 whereas in the FIR it is mentioned that the accident occurred on 23-08-
2016, which also demolishes the creditworthy of documents. He has further
submitted that the claimant Sushila Bari (PW-1) clearly stated that she was not
present at the place of incident. Omprakash Verma (PW-2) is the cousin of
deceased and as per his version, he saw the accident and he has not lodged the
FIR to the police authorities nor he accompanied the deceased when he was
brought for first-aid to the hospital. He has not suffered any injury. Thus, it is
clear that this witness is a chance witness. Thus, there was no eye-witness to the
incident.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the deceased
was 59-60 years of age and was temporary working as driver and after his
death, his son Nilesh has got compassionate appointment in place of the
deceased but, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly calculated the amount and finally
submitted that no accident involving the car have taken place and hence,
Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3- Shri Abhishek Singh has
supported the award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has considered the
facts and law and evidence brought before the Court hence, no case of
interference is made out.
8. On the point of accident and date of incident, the Claims Tribunal has
considered this fact in paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15, 18 and 22 regarding the date
of accident.
9. I have gone through the record of the Claims Tribunal.
10. The claimant- Smt. Sushila Bari has stated that on 23-08-2016 her
husband went to market to purchase the articles for 'Harchnat pujan' and at that
time the incident occurred from offending vehicle. After accident, her husband
was brought to government hospital, Satna from where he was referred to
Jabalpur hospital on 25-08-2016 and doctors of Jabalpur Hospital asked her to
carry her husband back hence, they were bringing the husband to Satna and in
the meantime, her husband expired.
11. I have gone through the document Ex. P/13 i.e. discharge ticket of
Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel District Hospital, Satna and on this document, the
name of patient is written as Ramnarayan aged 60 years s/o- Ramkripal Bari
R/o- Civil Lines,Satna and he was admitted in hospital on 23-08-2016 by OPD
ticket 219928 and on the same day, he was referred to higher center. In this
document, it is clearly mentioned that the patient suffered head injury and
fracture and the case was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur for further
treatment and in this aspect the document Ex. P/14 is the discharge card of
Apex Hospital and Research Center, Jabalpur in which, it is mentioned that
Ramnarayan Bari s/o- Ramkripal Bari R/o- Civil Lines Gadhia tola Civil Lines
Satna injured was admitted from 23-08-20216 to 25-08-2016. In this also, it is
clearly mentioned that the patient suffered head injury and fracture in temporal
bone and as per that document, the patient was in critical condition and was
discharged on the request of the relatives.
1 2 . The final Bill Ex.P-15 and the Bills of medical store attached to
hospital and the receipts of the advance deposit of the amount for the treatment
are from Ex. P-16 to Ex. P-33 and the documents have not been challenged that
the documents are forged documents. Furthermore, Ex.P-4 Merg Intimation
was registered as a No. 223/2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C on 26.08.2016 at
1:30 AM by Head Constable No.519 Sokhilal Verma by the reporting police
chowki attached to District Hospital Satna.
1 3 . In merg. intimation it has been mentioned that the deceased was
brought at 11:45 PM in dead condition and the body was kept in mortuary and
time of death have been reported on 25-08-2016 at 11:45 PM.
14. As per Ex. P/5, Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared on 26-08-2016
and as per Ex.P/6, autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the
deceased. The deceased died due to head injury. Thus, it is clear that on 23-08-
2016, the deceased got injury and he was brought to District Hospital, Satna
from where he was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur and the relatives
got admitted the victim to the Apex Hospital and Research Center,Jabalpur and
when his condition deteriorated and there was no hope of survival, the deceased
was discharged and relatives were returning with the deceased to Satna and he
died on the way and he was brought to District Hospital where the dead body
was kept in mortuary and police was informed and on that basis merg. was
registered on 25-08-2016.
15. As per FIR Ex. P/2 on the merg. inquiry was conducted and after
inquiry involvement of the offending vehicle was found. the FIR was lodged on
26-09-2016 Ex. P/2 and thus, there is no laches or delay on the part of the
claimant/deceased and the merg. was registered on 25-08-2016 and it is also
clear from the documents of the treatment that the deceased suffered head
injury.
16. After registration of the case, the MLC was sent to District Hospital
for reporting as Ex.P/7 and on that, the Medical Officer has clearly stated that
he examined the deceased on 23-08-2016 at 8:04 AM and the patient has stated
that he has fallen from the own vehicle but, how he cannot explain. Thus, on the
basis of above dates, no inconsistency is found by which the claim can be
rejected and the Tribunal has considered these facts.
17. The Insurance Company has argued much on the point of collusion
but, neither the owner nor the Insurance Company has examined any witness on
this behalf. So, the Insurance Company cannot raise this point at this stage that
the vehicle with the collusion of the owner, was implicated.
18. On the point of quantum,the Claims Tribunal has considered the age
of the deceased and calculated the whole salary and looking to the age of the
deceased 59 years has added 15% in the head of future prospect and applied
the multiplier of 9 and on that basis, the loss of dependency has been
calculated.
1 9 . The Claims Tribunal in considering the income tax has not
considered the fact of standard deduction and the fact that Rs. 12,000/- was
deducted in the head of EPF and Rs. 1.5 lacs can be adjusted on that head. So,
it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income. As
far as compassionate appointment is concerned, as per the judgment of the
Vimal Kanwar and Ors. vs. Kishore Dan and Ors. 2013 ACJ 1441 SC ,
salary on the basis of the compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from
the amount of award and this fact was further held in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Rekhben and Ors. 2017 ACJ 205 SC.
20. The trial Court has considered the above facts and awarded proper
compensation.
21. From the above discussion, there is no infirmity in the award of the
Claims Tribunal hence, the impugned award is affirmed. The appeal being
devoid of merit is dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
PG
