Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Babita And 3 Ors. vs Juber Iqbal And 2 Ors. on 8 February, 2018
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M.A.No.351 of 2014
Smt. Babita & others
Vs.
Jubair & others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Romil Malpani, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on this 08th day of February, 2018) Rohit Arya, J This miscellaneous appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 21.11.2013 passed in Claim Case No.291/2013 by XVI Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: on 10.07.2011 at about 4:45 am, Satyendrasingh (deceased) along with Vicky Singh were going in a Tempo trax bearing Registration No.MP-09-B.C.3055 from Indorama to Depalpur. When they reached near Pithampur the offending truck bearing registration No.MP-09-HG-3344 coming from opposite direction driven by rashly and negligently, dashed the tempo trax, due to which, Satyendrasingh sustained multiple injuries and died.
3. Claimants claim that at the time of incident, the deceased Satyendra Singh was aged about 42 years and was in a service of private company. He was earning about Rs.12,877/- per month.
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 have not been assessed appropriately. Hence, the compensation has to be enhanced.
5. Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised various contentions 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. The 2 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 multiple injuries due to which he died.
8. It is considered apposite to mention that the accident in question occurred in the year 2011 and the appeal on behalf of the claimants is pending since the year 2014; for the last 4 years.
9. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the claimants is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding dependency of Rs.12,94,160/-; loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-, love and affection Rs.25,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- and future prospects Rs.32,200/-; total compensation of Rs.14,96,360/- to the claimants.
10. Having gone through the impugned award and looking to the fact that deceased was aged about 42 years and future prospects have not been assessed properly, in the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately.
11. 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 42 years and, he was earning more than Rs.11,555/- per month while in service in a private firm on the date of accident. Accordingly, the income of deceased assessed as Rs.11,555/- per month by the tribunal is kept intact. The tribunal ha deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Such findings is perverse, hence set aside. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased as per post mortem report was found to be 42 years of age and his wife, two children and widowed mother were dependent upon him on the date of the incident. Hence, the multiplier '14' is appropriate multiplier. After deducting 1/4 th 3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, out of Rs.1,38,660/- [Rs.1,38,660- 34665], i.e., Rs.1,03,995/-, i.e., Rs.1,03,995/- x 14 = total dependency comes to Rs.14,55,930/- and the future prospects are awarded on a lower side.
12. Bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Vs.Pranay Sethi (Supra), it is held that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation on the head of 'future prospects' at the rate of 30% only over the amount of dependency determined by the tribunal.
13. Accordingly, the amount of compensation under the head 'future prospect' is substituted from Rs.32,200/- to 4,36,779/-
14. The claimants are entitled to the compensation as follow:
Dependency : Rs. 14,55,930/-
: [Income Rs.11,555 x 12 =1,38,660 -
1/4= 34,665 = 103995 x 14]
Future prospect : Rs.4,36,779/-[according to 30%]
Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of love & affection : Rs. 25,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
------------------
Total : Rs.20,42,709/-
------------------
15. As such, the the claimants are entitled for just
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead Rs.5,46,349/-, over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence the total compensation is enhanced from Rs.14,96,360/- to Rs.20,42,709/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Nine 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 shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Jyoti/b-
Jyoti Chourasia 2018.02.14 10:32:46 +05'30'