Patna High Court
Renu Devi And Ors vs The Managing Director And Ors on 1 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.502 of 2017
======================================================
1. Renu Devi and Ors W/o Late Mukesh Pandit
2. Niraj Kumar S/o Late Mukesh Pandit
3. Dhiraj Kumar S/o Late Mukesh Pandit
4. Puja Kumari D/o Late Mukesh Pandit
5. Tulsi Pandit S/o Lochan Pandit, Appellant no 2 to 4 are minor under the
legal guardianship of their mother, Appel All residents of Village - Chhata,
P.S. - Masauri, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Managing Director and Ors
2. Tathalli Chennayya Gopi S/o Chennayya Resident of Ganga House no. 109,
Bandamma, Temple Stree, Mallikori Bhadravathi, District - Sumoga
Karnataka.
3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd, through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office - 1, Laxm
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 01-05-2025
Heard Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Shahi the
learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ashok
Priyadarshi the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "M V Act") on behalf of appellants for enhancing
the compensation amount awarded to the appellants/claimants
by the learned Additional District Judge-X cum-Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "learned
Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 3207 of 14 vide judgment dated
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
2/10
01.07.2016
and award dated on 22.02.2017.
3. The learned Tribunal held that the appellants are
entitled to receive Rs. 5,41,000/- as compensation and accordingly
the United India Insurance Company/respondent no. 3 has been
directed to make payment of the compensation amount as per the
order forthwith, along with simple interest 6% interest per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition within a month from the
receipt of the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
4. The details of the calculation of compensation
amount made by the learned Tribunal are as under:
Sr. no Heads Calculation Net amount
1. Monthly Income Rs. 150/-*30 Rs. 4,500/-
2. Annual Income Rs. 4,500/-*12 Rs.54,000/-
3. 1/3rd deduction Rs. 18,000/-
towards personal and
living expenses
4. Family contribution Rs.54,000- Rs. Rs. 36,000/-
18,000
5. Deceased aged about Rs.36,000 x 16 Rs. 5,76,000/-
35 years Multiplier of
16 is applicable
6. Loss of estate Rs.5,000/-
7. Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
9. compensation Rs. 5,91,000/-
10. Interim compensation Rs. 50,000/-
received by the
claimant
11. Total amount of Rs. 5,91,000/- - Rs. 5,41,000/-
compensation Rs. 50,000/-
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
5. The brief facts of this case are that on
15.07.2013 the deceased was crossing the road at Khandavalli
village in the meantime a bus bearing Registration No AP 29-TB
6330 came rashly and negligently from Vishakpattnam side and
dashed the deceased as a result deceased Mukesh Pandit
sustained multiple injuries and died due to sustained injuries. On
the basis of report of the occurrence, Crime No.87 of 2013
under Section 304A of the IPC in Peravalli Police Station was
registered and chargsheet was submitted against the Driver of
the offending vehicle.
6. Moreover, notices against the opposite parties
were issued and opposite party no. 3 United India Insurance
Company Limited appeared and filed written statement. In the
written statement it has been submitted that the claim petition
filed on behalf of the claimants is not maintainable and fit to be
dismissed, the claimants have got no valid cause of action. It is
said that the cause and manner of accident is vague and the
materials facts have been evident by the claimants that accident
took place due to gross negligence of the deceased himself. It is
further submitted that opposite party admits that the interest of
Managing Director VRL Logistic Ltd. in the bus was covered at
the material time under the liability policy of insurance subject
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
to the terms conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof. It is
also submitted that the Insurance Policy is in the possession of
insured and he may be directed to produce Original Insurance
Policy. It is further submitted that the driver of the offending
vehicle at the material time of accident was not having a valid
and effective driving license to ply the said vehicle and opposite
party no-1 and 2 did not appear in this case therefore, exparte
hearing proceed against opposite party No 1 and 2.
7. On the basis of pleading and submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed
the following issues :
i) Whether the compensation case as
framed is maintainable?
ii) Whether the claimants have got valid
cause of action for the compensation case?
iii) Whether the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of
offending Bus bearing Registration No AP
29-TB 63307
iv) Whether the offeiding vehicle was
insurred with the opposite party no 3 at the
relevant time?
v) Whether the driver of the offending
vehciel was having valid and effective
driving licences and whether the owner of
the offending vehciels was having valid
route permit to ply the vehicles at the
relevant time?
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
vi) Whether the claimants is entitled for
compensation, if so to what extent?
vii) Whether the claimants are entitled any
other relief or reliefs?
8. The claimants in support of its case have
altogether examined two witnesses CW-1 Renu devi and CW-2
Sohrai Pandit and they have also filed documentary evidence in
support of their claim marked as exhibits Ext 1. Photocopy of
FIR, Ext. 2 Police Report of Crime no 87 of 2013 under Section
304A of the IPC in Peravalli police station dated 04.10.2013,
Ext. 3 Photocopy of Postmortem Report, Ext. 4 Insurance Paper.
On the behalf of opposite party neither oral nor documentary
evidence has been produced.
9. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that
Learned tribunal has not given the benefit of future prospect as
the age of deceased is 35 years so 40% future prospect should
be given as per Hon'ble Apex court decision given in Pranay
Sethi Case(2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submitted that the
personal expense deduction was taken as 1/3rd which is not in
accordance with settled principle of law in this regard, as
number of claimants are five, so personal expense deduction
will be 1/4th.
10. He also submitted that the learned tribunal
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
has given Rs 5000 for loss of Consortium, which is very
inadequate amount, appellant no.1 are entitled for Rs 40000
+10% increase every 3 years as per Pranay Sethi (supra) as loss
of Spousal consortium and appellants no 2 to 4 are entitled for
Loss of Parental consortium as per Magma GIC Ltd v/s Nanu
Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 per head of Rs 40000+
10% increase every three year, appellants are also entitled for
funeral expense of Rs 15000+10% increase every 3 year and
loss of Estate of Rs 15000+ 10% increase every 3 year.
11. Learned counsel for respondents submitted
that the present memo of appeal is not maintainable the appeal
is preferred on wrong and misconceived notions. He further
submitted that the statements which are not specifically
admitted by the respondent no. 1 shall be deemed to have been
denied by the answering respondent and the answering
respondent is mere a pro-forma party to this miscellaneous
appeal as the impugned judgment and decree is not directed
against the respondent no. 1 rather it is directed specifically
against the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company.
12. He further submitted that the Respondent No.
3 is solely liable to pay the compensation amount as a judgment
debtor and the learned court below has rightly decided and held
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
the insurance company solely liable. The respondent no.1 has
paid all the requisite premium on time to the Respondent No. 3
and the insurance is completed and without any breakage hence
the respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the appellants a single
penny and it can be realized from the respondent No. 3.
13. In the present case, the occurrence of the
accident and liability of the Insurance Company is not in
dispute. The only issue to be decided before this court is
whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation and if so, to what extent?
14. The term compensation is a comprehensive
term which includes a claim for the damages. The claimant in a
claim for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act,
is entitled for just compensation which has to be equitable and
fair. The loss of life and limb can never be compensated in an
equal measure but the Act is a social piece of legislation with
object to facilitate the claimants to get redress the loss of the
member of family, compensate the loss in some measure and
compensate the claimants to a reasonable extent.
15. The learned tribunal held that the age of
deceased was 35 years at the time of his death accordingly in
view of National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Seti & Ors reported
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and Ors v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
the multiplier applicable according to his age range (31 to 35) of
deceased would be 16. With respect to future prospect, 40% of
monthly income of deceased was added in his income and
deduction of 1/4th of his actual income has been taken. There is
no dispute in this regard on behalf of the parties. It is now well-
settled and not disputed that loss of consortium would be
awarded to each claimants.
16. In so far as conventional damage of
claimants are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded loss
of estate Rs.5,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- and loss of
consortium Rs.5,000/- which is not a just compensation and required
to be enhanced. The deceased left behind his wife, three children
among them two are minor and father as his dependents. On the basis
of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, United India Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Satindar Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in
(2021) 11 SCC 780 and Rojline Nayak and Ors. Ajit Sahoo and Ors.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901, the following amounts are
awarded as compensation under the conventional head:
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
Sr. no. Heads Calculation Compensation amount
1. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 18,150/-
Enhance 10%
twice
2. Loss of Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 2, 42,000/-
Consortium Enhance 10% (Rs. 48,400/- x 5)
twice
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 18,150/-
Enhance 10%
twice
17. As the deceased was of 35 years and it was not
established that he was a permanent employee, hence, future
prospects to the tune of 40% must be paid as in accordance with para
59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra).
18. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable will
be as follows:
Sr. no. Head Compensation
Awarded
1. Annual Income Rs.54,000/-(Rs.4,500 X
12)
2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.21,600 + Rs.54,000)
3. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living Rs.18,900/-
expenses
4. Annual income after deduction Rs.56,700/-
5. Multiplier 16.
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.9,07,200/-
(Rs.56,700 X 16)
7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,42,000/-
9. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
10. Total Compensation Rs.11,85,500/-
Patna High Court MA No.502 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
19. The Judgment dated 01.07.2016 and Award
dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal stands
modified to the aforesaid extent with 6% interest only from the
date of the filing of the claim petition. Accordingly, this appeal
is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned
Judgment and award.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
21. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Sunnykr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.05.2025
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date 09.05.2025
