Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indrabai vs The New India General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 22 March, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22 nd OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3016 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. INDRABAI W/O BHAVSINGH BANJARA, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
NEAR POND, BASTI OF BANAJRA, VILLAGE
KOTHALA, AT PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA TEHSIL
GAROTH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SAPNA MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER INDRABAI W/O BAHVSINGH BANJARA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE NEAR POND BASTI OF BANJARA
VILLAGE OTHALA, AT PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA
TEHSIL GAROTH DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANBHAR MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER INDRABAI W/O BHAVSINGH
BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE NEAR POND BASTI OF BANJARA
VILLAGE OTHALA, AT PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA
TEHSIL GAROTH DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TOLA MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER INDRABAI W/O BHAVSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
NEAR POND BASTI OF BANJARA VILLAGE
OTHALA, AT PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA TEHSIL
GAROTH DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KRIPALSIGNH MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER INDRABAI W/O BHAVSIGNH
BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE NEAR POND BASTI OF BANJARA
VILLAGE OTHALA, AT PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA
TEHSIL GAROTH DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 01-04-2024
10:14:26
2
6. HEMA W/O MATRA @ MATHRA BANJARA, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING NEAR
POND BASTI OF BANJARA VILLAGE OTHALA, AT
PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA TEHSIL GAROTH
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SONIBAI W/O HEMA BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE NEAR POND
BASTI OF BANJARA VILLAGE OTHALA, AT
PRESENT- VILLAGE DHABA TEHSIL GAROTH
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELALNTS
(BY MS. ARCHANA MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE NEW INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH MANAGER ABOVE OF HONDA
SHOWROOM, NAHTA SQUARE, MANDSAUR
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PULICHINTALA BHAVYA TEJ @ SANTOSH S/O
SATHI REDDI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SOFTWARE ENGINEER PLOT NO.
43, RAJA RAESHWARI NAGAR, ROAD NO. 2,
HAYATH NAGAR MANDAL DISTRICT
RANGAREDDI (TELANGANA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MAYANK UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal by the claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 24.09.2022 passed by Additional Member MACT, Garoth district Mandsaur in Claim Case No.211/2020 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of Bhavsingh, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 01-04-2024 10:14:26 3 Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,37,680/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- whereas he earned Rs.30,000/- per month from his business, hence prays for just and proper amount of compensation in the case.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants. Considering the evidence that came on record, in the considered opinion of this Court the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced as under:
Income of deceased Rs.6,900/- 40% FP x12=Rs.1,15,920 (less 1/5) = Rs.92,736/- x16 = Rs.14,83,776/-
Consortium Rs.2,80,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.17,93,773/-
7. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.17,93,773/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.10,37,680/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7,56,093/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 01-04-2024 10:14:26 4(round off Rs.7,56,000/-) over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The appellants have valued the appeal only to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and paid the Court fee accordingly, however, for the remaining enhanced amount, the Court fee shall be paid by the appellants within a period of one month and thereafter the amount shall be released by the Insurance Company on receiving the certificate. In case the certificate has not been filed before the Insurance Company up to a period of three months, the claimants shall not be entitled to receive the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE RJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 01-04-2024 10:14:26