Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Shaila Varma vs Sumit Alias Sumit Singh on 21 March, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3247 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT.SHAILA VARMA W/O SURENDRA DEV
VARMA [DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER]
2. MOHIT VARMA S/O LATE SHRI SURENDRA DEV
VARMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O P-1/103
OXFORD VILLAGE PREMIUM VAANVADI
DISTRICT PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)
3. ROHIT VARMA S/O LATE SHRI SURENDRA DEV
VARMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PLOT NO.201,
BLOCK-A, HARSHA PRIDE, SIX G-CROSS, BALAJI
LAY OUT, C.Y. RAMAN NAGAR BANGLURA
(KARNATAKA)
.....APPELLANTS
CLAIMANTS
(BY SHRI A.P.SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUMIT ALIAS SUMIT SINGH DHURVE S/O
CHATRAPAL DHURVE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R / O WARD NO.113, KARUNA NAGAR, BUDHI
TAHSIL & DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ASHISH KUMAR BARMATE S/O PRABHUDAS
BARMATE, R/O WARD NO. 13, IIT, BUDHI TAHSIL
& DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BRANCH MANAGER MARUTI INSURANCE
BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE
NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE, IFFCO TOKYO ZAIK
LIMITED PLOT NO.03, SECTOR 29 GURGAON
(HARYANA-122001)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 15-05-2024
20:42:26
2
(NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2, INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE)
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI RAKESH JAIN - ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against impugned award dated 02.3.2019 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in MACT No.55/2017 [Smt.Shaila Verma and others Vs. Sumit alias Sumit Singh and others] seeking enhancement of Rs.17,75,000/- by paying court fee of Rs.44,365/-.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.1.2017 at about 09.00 pm deceased (Surendra Dev Verma) was going on feet from Kali Putli Square to his home. When he reached near P.G. College, at that juncture a White Wagon R bearing registration No.MP-50/C-3302 driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries and he succumbed to same during treatment. Therefore, wife and sons of deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of deceased stating that he was retired person of 78 years and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and was paying income tax. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,55,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the impugned award of compensation the appellants/claimants have filed instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, challenged the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in deducting amount of Family Pension of Rs.28,000/- which ought not to have been deducted and, therefore, determination of compensation is erroneous. In support of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 15-05-2024 20:42:26 3 contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has supported the award of the Tribunal and claimed dismissal of appeal.
5. The accident, negligence and liability in the present case are not in dispute, therefore, findings of the Tribunal in that regard are not assailed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. Tribunal held that since there is no breach of policy the liability is on the Insurance Company. It is also seen from paragraph 16 of the award that the Tribunal has deducted Rs.28,000/- towards family pension. In this regard it is worth referring to paragraph 21 of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birender (supra) wherein it has been held that family pension cannot be termed as income of the widow. Thus, the family pension cannot be deducted while making computation of dependency of family. Hence, the correct calculation of compensation would be as follows:-
(i) Monthly pension of deceased - Rs.42,000/-
(ii) 1/3rd deduction towards personal - Rs.28,000 living expenses (Rs.42,000/- less Rs.14,000/-)
(iii) Annual dependency (Rs.28000 X 12)- Rs.3,36,000/-
(iv) Deceased age being 70 years - 05
multiplier applied
(v) Total dependency - Rs.16,80,000/-
(Rs.3,36,000/- X 5)
Signature Not Verified
(vi) Towards loss of estate - Rs.30,000/-
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 15-05-2024
20:42:26
4
& funeral expenses
(vii) Medical treatment expenses - Rs.20,000/-
and other misc.heads viz.
special diet, transportation,
& attender
(viii) Loss of love, affection - Rs.1,32,000/-
and consortium (claimants/wife
& two children)
-------------------
Total compensation Rs.18,62,000/-
Thus, the amount of compensation to which the appellants/claimants would be entitled to is Rs.18,62,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,55,000/-. Thus, the enhancement of compensation to the which the appellants are entitled would be Rs.13,07,000/- [Rs.18,62,000/- less Rs.5,55,000/-]. The other terms and conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE RM Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 15-05-2024 20:42:26