Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Smt. Veena on 6 November, 2017
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.A.No.3186 of 2007
Smt. Veena and another
Vs.
Vijendra & others
&
M.A.No.3736 of 2007
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Vs.
Smt. Vina & others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Atul Jaiswal Advocate for the appellants and Shri
S.V.Dandawate, Advocate for the respondent No.3 in
M.A.No.3186/2007.
Shri S.V.Dandawate, Advocate for appellant and Shri Atul Jaiswal,
Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 in M.A.No.3736/207.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(06/11/2017) Rohit Arya, J The miscellaneous appeal No.3186 of 2007 by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and miscellaneous appeal No.3736 of 2007 by the Insurance Company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed challenging the impugned award dated 31/08/2007 passed in claim case No.31 of 2007 by VII Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid two appeals, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.No.3186 of 2007 have been dealt with.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of these appeals lie in narrow compass: Kum. Vaarunee Ladda (daughter of appellants No.1 and 2 and sister of appellant No.3) on 26/08/2006 at about 10.00 am while going on her Honda Activa (scooter) bearing registration No.MP09 LF 9026 and reached near Suyash Hospital on A.B.Road, Indore, the offending tempo with registration No.MP09 S 8099 driven by respondent No.1, Vijendra negligently and rashly dashed the scooter from behind, as a result, she suffered serious injuries. To provide immediate medical treatment, she was taken to M.Y.Hospital, Indore. However, looking to her serious condition, she was admitted at C.H.L.Apollo Hospital, Indore from 26/08/2006 to 30/09/2006 and thereafter she was shifted to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai on 01/10/2006 for treatment and died on 25/12/2006 at Mumbai.
2 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/20073. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that at the time of incident, the deceased Kumari Vaarunee Ladda was aged about 19 ½ years and a brilliant student of B.E., (Third year). Due to precarious financial condition of the parents, she used to take private tuitions and was earning about Rs.96,000/- per annum to meet out the expenses of her parents and herself. Because of the incident, she met untimely death, otherwise she could have prosecuted higher studies and may earn more than Rs.10.00 lakhs per annum.
4. The claimants/appellants have challenged the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the premise that the compensation awarded is meager and on the lower side on various heads and even future prospects of the deceased have not been awarded appropriately. Hence, the compensation has to be enhanced.
5. Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised various contentions including that there was a delay of a day in lodging the FIR and there was no mention of the details therein; in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident which was insured with the Insurance Company. On merits, it is submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is called for. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the claimants and allowing the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company appears to be lucrative but it loses its significance in the wake of detailed findings recorded by the Tribunal in the award.
6. Heard.
7. It is borne out from the material on record that the deceased suffered various injuries including head injury followed by multiple cranial nerve involvement as per MRI report.
8. It is established from the material available on record that the accident took place by the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.No.3736/2007. There is no material on record that there was breach of insurance policy by the driver/owner of the vehicle. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
9. It is considered apposite to mention that the accident in question occurred in the year 2006 and the appeal on behalf of the claimants is pending since the year 2007; for the last 10 years.
10. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the claimants is as to whether the Tribunal was justified 3 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007 awarding Rs.3,49,012/- + medical expenses, Rs.11,50,988/-; total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the claimants.
11. Having gone through the impugned award and looking to the fact that deceased was aged about 19 years and was a student of B.E., (third year) as well as earning by conducting tuition classes, loss of earning/dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, attendant expenses from 26/08/2006 to 25/12/2006, medical expenses, loss of estate and her future prospects have not been assessed properly. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately.
12. The finding of the Tribunal as regards earning of the deceased as determined under section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act is incorrect. Therefore, the finding as regards earning of the deceased is totally perverse and absolutely unreasonable. The claimants have asserted that the deceased was aged 19 years and by conducting tuition classes, she was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the deceased must have earning at least Rs.7,000/- per month, on the date of accident. Accordingly, the income of deceased is assessed as Rs.7,000/- per month, accordingly; Rs.7,000/- x 12 = 84,000/- per annum. The deceased as per post mortem report found to be 19 years of age and her mother was aged about 46 years and father was aged about 51 years, on the date of the incident. Hence, the multiplier '15' is appropriate multiplier. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, out of Rs.84,000/-, i.e., Rs.42,000/-, i.e., Rs.42,000/- x 15 = total dependency comes to Rs.6,30,000/-.
13. The Tribunal in paragraph 20 of the award though found that the medical bills were submitted to the tune of Rs.13,59,171/- but disallowed an amount of Rs.2,08,183/- only on the premise that signatures were not appended thereon by the Chemists. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error by disallowing an amount of Rs.2,08, 183/- for no fault on the part of the claimants, only on the ground that the same were not bearing signatures of the Chemists. Such finding is perverse in nature. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,08,183/- towards medical expenses in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 taking into consideration its earlier judgments, particularly; in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2012) 6 4 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007 SCC 421 has expressed a view that the conventional heads:, loss of love, care and guidance to children, loss of consortium to the spouse and funeral expenses etc., the sum of Rs.2,500 to Rs.10,000 in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor due to increase of price index from time to time, the same needs to be increased for award of "just compensation."
15. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the heads as follows:
(i) towards loss of dependency : Rs.2,60,000/-
(ii) towards funeral expenses : Rs. 4,000/-
(iii) towards loss of love & affection : Rs.10,000/-
(to the parents; Rs.5,000/- each)
(iv) towards medical attendant : Rs.10,000/-
(from 26/8/2006 to 25/12/2006)
(v) towards transportation : Rs.5,000/-
(vi) towards loss of estate : Rs.5,012/-
(vii) towards future prospects : Rs.55,000/-
(viii) towards medical expenses : Rs.11,50,988/-
___________
Total :: Rs.15,00,000/-
___________
16. Bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others (supra) and to meet the ends of justice, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is substituted and the claimants are entitled as follows:
(i) towards loss of dependency : Rs.6,30,000/-
(ii) towards funeral expenses : Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) towards loss of love & affection : Rs.2,00,000/-
(to the parents; Rs.5,000/- each)
(iv) towards medical attendant : Rs.40,000/- (from 26/8/2006 to 25/12/2006)
(v) towards transportation : Rs.40,000/-
(vi) towards loss of estate : Rs.55,829/-
(vii) towards future prospects : Rs.6,45,000/-
(viii) towards medical expenses : Rs.13,59,171/-
___________
Total :: Rs.30,00,000/-
___________
17. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only), which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation 5 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007 shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and in case the enhancement amount is not paid within the period stipulated in this order, the same shall also carry interest simple at the rate 6% per annum from the date of passing the order today. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has stated at Bar that the claimants have already received the amount of compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs awarded by the Tribunal and the same has not been controverted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.15.00 lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs only).
19. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants stands allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
20. A copy of the order be placed in the connected Mis. Appeal No.3736/2007.
(Rohit Arya) Judge 06-11-2017 b/-
MVR Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya BALAJI Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=dfd648b7a72175dda734ea3 f09b637e5485763880c50c1966cbd24 d7e7cdfee0, 2.5.4.45=032100257F82CA97352F5A SARMA 6F6E270FAFC6A036F71F4CF934D7D C3C1F18C329440EAAEB, cn=M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 2017.11.10 18:20:47 +05'30' 6 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007 M.A.Nos.3186/2007 & 3736/2007 06-11-2017 Shri Atul Jaiswal Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.V.Dandawate, Advocate for the respondent No.3 in M.A.No.3186/2007.
Shri S.V.Dandawate, Advocate for appellants and Shri Atul Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 in M.A.No.3736/207.
Arguments.
Order dictated, signed and dated separately.
(Rohit Arya)
b/- Judge