Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ram Ratan Sharma on 3 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 3 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2835 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR KARAMCHAND
CHOWK MARHATAL DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)
THR OUGH IN CHARGE T.P. HUB, VIJAY NAGAR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI N.S. RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAM RATAN SHARMA S/O SHRI TULSIRAM
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NEAR GAS
PLANT SHAHPURA JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. RAJKUMARI W/O RAMRATAN SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NEAR GAS PLANT
SHAHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VIKRAM SINGH S/O VIJAY SINGH, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, VILLAGE SONTALAI PS MADHOTAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. YOGESH KHANDELWAL S/O MANMOHAN
KHANDELWAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, H.NO. 30
DAMOH NAKA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AISHWARY SAHU - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND
2)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39 2 Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.2440/2017 (Ramratan Sharma and another Vs. Vikram Singh and others) on the ground that it is a case of false implication.
2. Reading from Dehati Merg intimation, Ex.D-1, it is pointed out by Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that in Ex.D- 1 it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died because of slip of the motorcycle. It is submitted that Dehati Merg intimation was given by one Ashutosh Singh Rajpoot and was recorded on 20.07.2017 that is the date of the accident and since it is mentioned in the Dehati Merg intimation, Ex.D-1 and Merg intimation, Ex.D-2 that the accident took place because of slip of the motorcycle on which deceased Anoop Sharma was travelling, that could not have been considered in part and denied in part as it will be against the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 (3) MPHT 225 SC.
3. It is further submitted that so-called eye witness Manish Jain is not a reliable witness and it is evident that he was speaking blatant lie before the Tribunal and therefore, he should not have been admitted to be an eye witness. Thirdly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 2 SCC 482, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging FIR gives rise to a presumption of false case being set up by the claimants to support a claim for compensation and refused to interfere with the dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39 3 has taken several perks like House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Medical Allowance etc. for the purpose of computation of compensation which are not admissible and those perks should have been excluded.
5. Shri Aishwary Sahu, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn, supports the impugned award.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as first pleading of Dehati Merg intimation, Ex.D-1 is concerned, respondents have themselves examined Shri Shailendra Singh S/o Late Shri Yashwant Singh, Head Constable Police Station Barela, District Jabalpur as their witness. He has clearly admitted in his cross-examination in para 2 that Ashutosh Singh Rajpoot, author of Dehati Merg intimation, Ex.D-1 was not an eye witness. He had deposed that on getting information, he had approached the place of incident and this fact is mentioned in Dehati Merg Intimation, Ex.D-
1 from 'C' to 'C', wherein it is mentioned that '' lwpuk feyus ij eS ekuljksoj <kck ds ikl vk;k Fkk". Thus, it is evident that much importance cannot be given to Ex.D-1 or Ex.D-2 which have been demolished by defence witnesses themselves.
7. As far as star witness of the insurance company is concerned, he is Santosh Prasad Rai S/o Shri J.S. Rai, Investigator and Advocate. He has though exhibited Investigation report, Ex.D-3 but in cross-examination in para 5 has admitted that he had not investigated the matter and had not taken statements of owner and driver of the offending vehicle. This demonstrates the hollowness of the investigation report. Insurance company placing reliance on an Investigator who did not even performed his basic duty of approaching the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39 4 owner driver of the offending vehicle and recording their statements, reveals that insurance company wastes public money in getting the investigation completed in the hands of incompetent persons. Therefore, this ground too is not made out.
8. As far as evidence of Manish Jain is concerned, though it is true that there is no material to support the fact that he had approached the police station to lodge FIR but fact of the matter is that some loopholes in the evidence, will not be sufficient to discard the FIR which clearly makes a mention of the fact that it was recorded by Sub Inspector Shri R.S. Upadhyay at Police Station Shahpura, District Jabalpur, who had carried out investigation in the matter of merg and had recorded statements of not only Manish Jain but also of Nilesh Kumar Patel and Manoj Dubey who had seen the incident on 20.07.2017 and on the basis of their statements, had recorded that accident took place with the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP20-MH-3165.
9. In view of such facts, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. It was open for the investigator or the insurance company to have examined two other witnesses who were examined by the police, namely, Nilesh Kumar Patel and Manoj Dubey after finding their whereabouts to ascertain the factum of accident and the manner in which the accident took place but the insurance company failed to discharge its burden which is not allowed to be shifted on the claimants.
10. As far as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar (supra) is concerned, there was no prompt reporting. In the present case, on the date of the accident itself, there is lodging of Dehati Merg intimation, Ex.D-1. The factum of accident was notified to the police immediately. If it took time to gather evidence and statistics to implicate the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39 5 respondents who are insured with the appellant then that cannot be so fatal to deny a just and proper claim. Thus, ratio of law laid down in case of Anil Kumar (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.
11. Now coming to the third ground of income of the deceased. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 ACJ 614 has held that amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. When this aspect is taken into consideration then except the City Compensatory Allowance which was beneficial to the employee, other amounts are not to be deducted.
12. Though Shri N.S. Ruprah prays for deletion of House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Education Allowance and Medical Allowance but fact of the matter is that House Rent Allowance, Education Allowance and Medical Allowance are for the benefit of the family. It is the City Compensatory Allowance which is for the benefit of the employee. Therefore, there will be reduction to the extent of Rs.23,232/- from the annual income computed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.2,56,260/- per annum. After deduction of City Compensatory Allowance, gross income will come out to Rs.2,33,028/- per annum. As the deceased was a bachelor, when 50% is deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased then net dependency will come out to Rs.1,16,514/- per annum. 50% is to be added towards the Future Prospects, taking total compensation to Rs.1,74,771/- and when multiplier of 17 is applied Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39 6 then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs.29,71,107/- in place of 30,49,494/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
13. Thus, there will be reduction to the tune of Rs.78,387/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Seven only) which will be admissible in favour of the insurance company. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
14. To this extent, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and disposed of.
15. Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 07-11-2023 19:17:39