Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanalal & Anr. vs Virendra Singh & Ors. on 13 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2966 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. NANALAL & ANR. S/O LATE SARUP CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
CHAMARI MOHALLA,KILA ROAD,MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT SOHANBAIWD/O PRABHULAL CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
CHAMARI MOHALLA,KILA ROAD,MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI MANISH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS).
AND
1. VIRENDRA SINGH & ORS. S/O TAKHATSINGH
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TEMP DRIVER
CHANDRAPURA,MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAKESH KUMAR S/O JAGDISHJI, AGED ABOUT 22
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: DRIVER KHANPURA
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE UNITED INDIS INSURANCE CO LTD B O 48
TAGORE MARG NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PUSHPABAIWD/O KANWARLAL, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , CHAMARI MOHALLA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. HEMA TH.MO.PUSHPABAID/O KANWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, CHAMARI MOHALLA
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DHARMENDRA TH MO.PUSHPABAI S/O
KANWARLAL, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, CHAMARI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 2/17/2024
4:35:07 PM
2
MOHALLA MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. JITENDRA TH.MO.PUSHPABAI S/O KANWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, CHAMARI MOHALLA
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. VINOD MINOR TH MO.PUSHPABAI S/O
KANWARLAL, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, CHAMARI
MOHALLA MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SANTOSH TH MO.PUSHPABAI S/O KANWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, CHAMARI MOHALLA
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VINAY VIJAYVARGIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-3]).
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt 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 08.07.2008 passed by Ist Additional MACT, Mandsaur in claim case No.12/2007 seeking setting aside the finding of the Tribunal regarding exoneration of the insurance company and holding insurance company liable jointly and severally to pay the award to the appellants and enhancement of compensation amount.
2. The date of accident and negligence are not in dispute and the findings of the Tribunal in this regard is not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal in the case of death of Kanchanbai, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.72,000/- with interest.
3. The claimants have filed this appeal on two grounds- firstly that Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side and secondly the Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay the amount of compensation towards third Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/17/2024 4:35:07 PM 3 party.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the insurance company has supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The first ground raised by the appellants is that Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability. Counsel for the appellant submitted that driver of the offending vehicle has LMV license and drove the offending vehicle which weighs below 7500 k.g., so there is no need of separate endorsement on his license to drive commercial vehicles.
7. In the case of Mukund Dewagan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
- AIR 2017 SC 3668 the apex Court has held that if the holder of license has LMV license then he can drive a vehicle which weighs below 7500 k.g. and he need not to have any separate endorsement. In the present case, driver of the offending vehicle drove a tempo and he possesses an LMV license so need not to have any separate endorsement on his license to drive that vehicle. So in the light of the decision in the case of Mukund Dewagan (supra) the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, therefore, finding of the Tribunal in this regard is found to be illegal in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation and the insurance company is equally liable to pay compensation jointly and severally with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The first liability is , however, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/17/2024 4:35:07 PM 4 imposed upon the insurance company to pay compensation.
8. The second ground raised by the appellant is that Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side while calculating the compensation amount. The counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income from Rs.3000 to 4000 per month. He further submitted that Tribunal has erred in applying lower multiplier in the case looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident. On this point Sohanbai and Nanalal were examined before the Tribunal who stated that their mother was doing labour work and was earning Rs.60/- per day. The accident occurred in the year 2006, so considering the age of the deceased and the year of accident, in the considered opinion of this Court, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.2500/- per month.
9. According to the postmortem report Ex.P/8 the age of the deceased was 75 years. According to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another - (2009) 6 SCC 121 the appropriate multiplier for the age group of more than 65 years is 5, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 5 in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:
HEAD AMOUNT
Loss of dependency -Rs.1,00,000/-
(i.e. Rs.2500x12=30000 - 1/3 personal expenses=20000 x 5 (multiplier) Loss of consortium -Rs.80,000/-
Loss of estate & funeral expenses-Rs.30,000/-
-------------------
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/17/2024 4:35:07 PM 5TOTAL Rs.2,10,000/-
10. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.2,10,000/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.72,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,38,000/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.1,38,000/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation shall be paid by the insurance company, owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. However, the first liability shall be on the insurance company. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact. In the result, the cross objection filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 also stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/17/2024 4:35:07 PM