Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shradha Pradhan vs Ghasita Gotia on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4171
1 MA-4544-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4544 of 2011
SMT. SHRADHA PRADHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
GHASITA GOTIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Patwardhan - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Diwakar Nath Shukla - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.1661/2025, an application for amendment in the
valuation of appeal and for taking deficit curt fee on record.
Application is allowed and the deficit court fee is taken on record.
This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated
18.8.2011 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jabalpur in Claim Case No.120/2009 whereby on account of the accident,
which took place on 15.9.2009, the claimant No.1 lost her husband whereas
claimant Nos.2&3 lost their father and the claimant No.4 lost her son.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal
has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospect and
inadequate amount has been awarded under the head of non-pecuniary
compensation and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4171
2 MA-4544-2011
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the average of
three years of the income tax return should have been taken into
consideration by learned Claims Tribunal and, therefore, no indulgence is
called for in this appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone though the record
so also the order passed by this Court on 16.11.2022 in M.A.No.1461/2022
(Smt.Madhulata Ramrayka versus Raheesh Khan & Others) where the
income tax return was prior to the date of the accident and the income of the
deceased was accepted as per the last income tax return and also in the light
of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.Ramya & Others versus National
Insurance Company Limited & Another 2022 SCC Online SC 1388 wherein
it is held that just compensation should be computed under a social welfare
statute and placing reliance on Paragraph No.17 of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali versus National Insurance Company Limited
(2012) 11 SCC 738 and Paragraph No.8 of Kalpanaraj versus Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC 764, wherein it is held that the
documents such as income tax return and the audit report are reliable piece
evidence to determine the income of the deceased and when the last income
tax return is prior to the date of the accident, that can be taken as correct
factum of income of the deceased on the date of the accident and, therefore,
the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is overruled.
When the income of the deceased is taken into consideration then
looking to the age of the deceased, which was 34 years at the time of the
accident, 40% is to be added towards future prospect and as there are four
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4171
3 MA-4544-2011
dependents, 1/4th will be deducted bringing the total dependency to
Rs.1,10,511/-. When multiplier of 16 is applied then the total pecuniary
compensation will come out to Rs.17,68,176/-. The claimants will be entitled
to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
under the head of loss of estate and Rs.1,60,000/- under the head of loss of
different consortium for each of the claimants taking total compensation to
Rs.19,58,176/- against Rs.14,10,000/-. Thus, there will be enhancement to
the tune of Rs.5,48,176/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Eight Thousand One
Hundred Seventy Six Only), which will be payable to the claimants
alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the date of actual payment. The other terms and conditions of the award
shall remain intact.
Let the award be complied with within a period of 30 days from the
date of communication of this order.
As this case was settled in the pre-sitting of the Lok Adalat for a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- but the docket was not sent, therefore, this fact be notified to
the Managing Director of the Insurance Company that after entering into a
compromise during the pre-sitting of the Lok Adalat, the Insurance Company
did not honour the compromise and did not file the docket, therefore, the
Insurance Company, if so required, may recover the excess amount i.e.
amount in excess of Rs.3,00,000/- from the delinquent officer of the
Insurance Company, who refused to sign the docket.
The respondents will also bear cost of this litigation, which is
quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4171
4 MA-4544-2011
In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
