Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sapna Mankar vs Mangilal @ Mangya on 24 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1102
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 MA No.5274/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MA No.5274/2019
Smt. Sapna & Ors. Vs. Mangilal & another
Indore, Dated: 24.02.2020
Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned counsel for
appellants.
Shri S.S.Chhawla, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 Insurance Company.
Heard on IA No.7428/2019 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
There is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the I.A, it is found that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within time on account of the bona-fide reason. The delay is unintentional and it has not taken place on account of any deliberate lapse on the part of the appellants.
On due consideration, it is found that a good ground is made out for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, I.A is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.
Learned counsel for appellants seeks permission to withdraw IA No.898/2020.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.898/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally with consent.
By this appeal u/S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants have challenged the award of II Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Barwani dated 2/5/2019 passed in Claim Case No.370/2018 and has sought enhancement Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 25/02/2020 17:07:59 2 MA No.5274/2019 of the compensation amount.
The appellants claimants had filed the claim petition before the tribunal with the plea that on 7/10/2018 when Mahendra was going in his motor cycle, the accident was caused by Motor cycle No.MP.46.MD.6224 driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1 in which Mahendra had received grievous head injuries and had died during treatment at District Hospital, Barwani. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- was claimed.
The respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte before the tribunal.
The respondent No.2 Insurance company by filing the reply before the tribunal had denied liability and taken the plea of violation of policy conditions and denying the liability.
The tribunal by permitting the parties to lead the evidence and after examining the same has found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle No.MP.46.MD.6224 by the respondent No.1. The tribunal further found that Mahendra had died on account of the injuries received in the accident and that there was no violation of the policy conditions. The tribunal further assessed the age of the deceased between 18-20 years and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. Tribunal had deducted 1/3 towards the self expenses and after applying the multiplier of 18 and adding 40% towards future prospects, assessed the loss of dependency of Rs.12,09,600/-. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 25/02/2020 17:07:59 3 MA No.5274/2019 consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Thus, the tribunal passed an award of Rs.12,64,600/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has committed an error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased and that in terms of the circular issued by the Labour Officer, Barwani dated 7/4/2018 the daily wages for skilled worker was Rs.7325/- during the relevant period.
As against this, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the impugned award.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant had deposed before the tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but no document in support of which was produced. The tribunal had noted that the deceased was about 20 years of age and was a labourer, therefore, considering the minimum wages and dearness allowance for the relevant period, the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-. No notification/circular of the concerned Labour Officer was taken note of by the tribunal while mentioning the daily wages of Rs.6000/-. The circular dated 7/4/2018 issued by the Labour Officer, Barwani applicable to the period from 01/4/2018 to 30/9/2018 produced by the appellants reveals that the monthly wages on the basis of daily wages along with dearness allowance fixed by the concerned Labour Officer was Rs.7325/-. Hence, the tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income on the basis of the said circular. The tribunal has not committed any error in deducting 1/3 towards self expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 25/02/2020 17:07:59 4 MA No.5274/2019 and adding 40% towards the future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ACJ 2700. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7325/- x 12 x 1/3 + 40% x 18 = Rs.14,76,720/-. In terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.70,000/- under the other heads in addition to the amount which is calculated above. Thus, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,46,720/- (round off to Rs.15,46,700/-) whereas the tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs.12,64,600/-.
In view of the above analysis, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.2,82,100/- (Rupees Two lakh eighty two thousand and one hundred only) which the appellants are entitled over and above the amount which has already been awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced amount will bear interest on the same rate as awarded by the tribunal and will be governed by the same terms as contained in the award of the tribunal.
No costs.
c.c as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 25/02/2020 17:07:59