Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Singh Sikarwar vs Smt.Motiraja on 20 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
1 MA No.191 of 2013 & MA.No.90 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 191 of 2013
SMT. MOTI RAJA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHARIF KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K. Kushwah - Advocate for appellants.
Shri O.P. Mathur - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.3.
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 90 of 2013
RAVINDRA SINGH SIKARWAR
Versus
SMT.MOTIRAJA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Gupta - Adqvocate for appellant.
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.7.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 1/25/2025
2:02:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
2 MA No.191 of 2013 & MA.No.90 of 2013
ORDER
By this common order, both the aforesaid appeals shall be disposed
of.
2. Both the Misc. Appeals have been filed, under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 02.11.2012 passed by
V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim
Case No.80/2011 by which the claim filed by claimants Smt. Motiraja and
others has been allowed and total compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- has been
awarded.
3. Misc. Appeal No.191 of 2013 has been filed for enhancement of
compensation amount as well as for claiming that the principle of pay and
recover should be applied whereas Misc. Appeal No.90 of 2013 has been
filed by owner of the vehicle against exoneration of Insurance Company.
4. Since the factum of vehicular accident is not in dispute, therefore, it
is suffice to mention here that on 11.04.2011, at about 10 pm, Ramrahis
Singh @ Gudda met with a vehicular accident caused by vehicle bearing
Registration Number MP07/TA0627, as a result he expired on the spot.
Accordingly, Crime No.41/2011 was registered for offences punishable
under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC.
5. The Claims Tribunal has held that since the offending vehicle was
neither having permit nor fitness certificate, therefore, offending vehicle
was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation amount and completely exonerated the insurance company.
So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it was held that deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
was a labourer and claimants have failed to prove that deceased was a
Mason and was earning Rs.300/- per day and accordingly it was held that
notional income of deceased can be assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e.
Rs.100/- per day. Since total number of dependents were taken to be five,
therefore, it was held that the personal expenses of the deceased would be
1/4 and since deceased was aged about 32 years, therefore, multiplier of
16 would apply. Rs.2,000/- were given under the head of funeral expenses
whereas Rs.2,500/- were given under the head of loss of estate. Rs.5,000/-
was given under the head of consortium to Claimant No.1 and thus, in all,
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,41,500/- was awarded.
6. It is submitted by counsel for claimants that where the claimants
have failed to prove the income of deceased by leading cogent evidence,
then the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act can be taken
as a guiding factor. The accident took place on 11.04.2011 and as per the
notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages of an
unskilled labourer were Rs.4,395/- per month. Therefore, it is submitted
that the income of deceased should have been assessed as Rs.4,395/- per
month. It is further submitted that future prospects were not granted. The
compensation amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses as well
as loss of estate is also on lower side. All the five claimants were entitled
for consortium in the form of spousal consortium, parental consortium
and filial consortium. It is further submitted that when the offending
vehicle was being plied in contravention of the insurance policy, then the
Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of pay and recover and
therefore complete exoneration of insurance company, without liability to
pay with liberty to recover, is bad in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
7. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for owner who is appellant in
MA. No.90/2013 that even if the vehicle was being plied without fitness
certificate and permit, still the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation amount.
8. It is submitted by counsel for Insurance Company that principle of
pay and recover cannot be applied.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Quantum of compensation:
10. Where the parties have failed to prove income of the deceased by
leading cogent evidence then notification issued under the Minimum
Wages Act can be taken as a guiding factor. The accident took place on
11.04.2011 and as per the notification issue under the Minimum Wages
Act, the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer was Rs.4,395/- per
month. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims
Tribunal should have taken the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.4,395/- per month. The claimants are also entitled for future prospects
which have not been awarded. Since the deceased was aged about 32
years, therefore, future prospects at the rate of 40% are to be awarded.
The wife, children and parents of deceased are entitled for spousal
consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium respectively.
Accordingly, each of claimants is entitled for consortium at the rate of
40,000/-. The compensation under the head of funeral expenses as well as
loss of estate is on lower side. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are
entitled for the following compensation amount:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
S.No. Head Amount payable to
Appellant
(In Rupees)
1. Monthly Income 4,395
2. Future Prospects @ 40% 1,758
3. Total monthly income 6,153
4. Personal Expenses @ 1/4 1,538
5. Loss of monthly income 4,615
6. Loss of yearly income 55,380
7. Total loss of dependency 8,86,080
(multiplier of 16)
8. Consortium 40,000/- x 5 2,00,000
9. Funeral Expenses 15,000
10. Loss of Estate 15,000
11. Total Compensation 11,16,080
12. Compensation awarded by the 4,41,500
Claims Tribunal
13 Compensation enhanced by 6,74,580
11. Since the appeal has been valued at Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore,
compensation amount is further enhanced by Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lacs only).
Whether principle of pay and recovery can be applied or not?
12. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was being plied without valid
permit and fitness certificate. In the light of judgment passed by Supreme
Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 , insurance company is
liable to satisfy the award, with liberty to recover the same from the
owner/insured. Accordingly, it is directed that the Insurance Company
shall pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from
owner. The remaining conditions of the award passed by the Claims
Tribunal shall remain the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:1399
13. With aforesaid two modifications, the award dated 02.11.2012
passed by V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.)
in Claim Case No.80/2011 is hereby affirmed.
14. Accordingly, MA No.191/2013 is hereby allowed and MA.
No.90/2013 is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
