Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Krishnabai vs Kantilal on 9 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2206 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. KRISHNABAI W/O MITHUDAS BAIRAGI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE NAYAGAON, NARSINGHPURA, MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU NANDINI THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
KRISHNABAI D/O MITHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 11
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT NAYAGAON
NARSINGHPURA MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KU RAJESHWARI THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN KRISHNABAI D/O MUITHUDAS, AGED
ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
NAYAGAON NARSINGHPURA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU DIVYA THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
KRISHNABAI D/O MITHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 2
YEARS, NAYAGAON NARSINGHPURA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT TARABAI W/O SUNDERDAS BAIRAGI
NAYAGAON NARSINGHPURA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SUNDERDAS S/O MADHAVDAS BAIRAGI, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT JOB
NAYAGAON NARSINGHPURA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI POURUSH RANKA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KANTILAL S/O KAILASH TANK OCCUPATION:
TRACTOR DRIVER JAMIDAR COLONY, RAM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 10-05-2024
19:01:15
2
TEKRI, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MUBARIK S/O MUSHTAK HUSSAIN OCCUPATION:
TRACTOR OWNER MULTANPURA MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CO LTD THROUGH
THE BRANCH OFFICE JANGID MANSION MHOW
NEEMUCH ROAD MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MONESH JINDAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.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 Ac t is arising out of the award dated 08.08.2016 passed by learned IInd Memb er MACT, Mandsaur in Claim Case No.252/2016 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 Mithudas Bairagi has awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,28,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month as the deceased was a hardworking man and doing different works in order to support his family as he was the sole earning member of the family with six dependents upon him. The Tribunal has also committed legal and factual error by not considering the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month as a contractor duly licensed by the State Government and also working as Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 10-05-2024 19:01:15 3 recovery agent for the banks and he was also a sales man with Tata Motors. The Tribunal has not considered the documents Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 in order to decide the income of the deceased Mithudas and has arbitrarily assumed the income as Rs.4,500/- per month which is meagre and on lower side. He further submitted that Tribunal has committed gross error by not considering that the deceased Mithudas was earning around Rs.7,000/- from doing salesmanship in Tata Motors and Rs.4,000/- was a fixed monthly salary and Rs.500/- he get on every vehicle he used to sale. The deceased was duly licensed and also working as a contractor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and working as recovery agent for Bank. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal the he was working as salesman in Tata Motors and recovery agent and Contractor, in the considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper amount of income of deceased in the present case would be Rs.5,500/- per month.
Hence, compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced as under:
Loss of dependency (Income of Rs.5,500/- plus Rs.2,200/- (40% deceased) FP)=Rs.7,700/-less Rs.1,925(1/4)= Rs.5,775/- x 12 x16 =Rs.11,08,800/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 10-05-2024
19:01:15
4
Total Amount Rs.13,78,800/-
MACT Award Rs.9,28,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.4,50,800/-
6. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case i s Rs.13,78,800/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.9,28,000/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,50,800/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The appellants have valued the appeal only to the extent of Rs.4 lakhs and paid the Court fee accordingly. However, for the remaining 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.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and 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: 10-05-2024 19:01:15