Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Indra vs Brajkishor Yadav on 29 August, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 183 of 2017
Between:-
1 SMT. INDRA W/O SHRI RAMNATH JATAV, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
VILLAGE JITARWAI TAHSIL GOHAD, DISTT.
BHIND, AT PRESENT GAUTAM NAGAR MURAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2 RAMNATH JATAV S/O HARPAL SINGH JATAV,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JITARWAI
TAHSIL GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND, AT PRESENT
GAUTAM NAGAR MURAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.............APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. MEENA SINGHAL- ADVOCATE )
AND
1 BRAJKISHOR YADAV S/O SHRI DAYARAM YADAV
R/O 347 A B. ROAD RUTHIYAI THANA
RAGHOGARH DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2 T.S. ROADVEJ PRIVATE LIMITED PROPRIETOR
MOHAN YADAV S/O SHRI UDAYBHAN YADAV R/O
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
347 AB ROAD RUTHIYAI THANA RADHOGARH
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 29-08-2022
05:12:23 PM
02
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE 4 FLOOR COMMERCE HOUSE 7
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SHRI N.S.TOMAR- ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
court passed the following :
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the award passed by the 14 th Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No.2/2016 on 5.12.2016, appellants have preferred this appeal.
Appellants are mother and father of the deceased Late Jaydevi aged about five years. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 29-08-2022 05:12:23 PM 03 No.3/Insurance Company.
Brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day i.e. 29.12.2015 appellants along with the deceased were waiting for the bus at Jitarwai bus stand. At about 3.30 pm respondent No.1 came driving dumper bearing registration No.BR01/GB 5446 rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased, due to which she died on the spot. After accident, FIR was lodged at police Station, Mau. Offence was registered. Appellants/claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, adduced evidence and thereafter learned Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs.2,50,000/- by calculating notional income of the deceased to be Rs.30,000/- per year, applying multiplier of 15 and thereafter deducing 1/2th of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and adding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU least an award of Rs. five lacs should have been passed in favour SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 29-08-2022 05:12:23 PM 04 of the appellants for the death of their five years daughter. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Anr. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. decided in Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 on 16th November, 2021, Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, 2013 ACJ 2594 and the decision of this Court in Chhoti Devi (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Babu Hussain & Ors., MACD 2019 (3) (M.P.) 1472 and the decision of Kerala High Court in Sannasi and others vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2020 ACJ 2010.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.30,000/- per year, applied correct multiplier of 15, rightly followed the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and rightly deducted ½ of the notional income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 29-08-2022 05:12:23 PM 05 and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 ACJ 2211 in which Hon'ble Apex Court as far as future prospects are concerned observed that decision in R.K.Malik vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 ACJ 1924 (SC) does not consider decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender, 2007 ACJ 160 (SC) on the grant of future prospects as far as children are concerned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra) by considering the decision in the cases of Puttamma & Ors. Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 45, R.K.Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 1, Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256 has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- to the appellants for the death of a 7 years boy without making any deduction towards his personal expenses.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU of Kurvan Ansari (supra) the award of the Claims Tribunal is SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 29-08-2022 05:12:23 PM 06 modified to the extent that finding of ½ deduction from the notional income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is set aside. Thus, claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-. Rest of the terms & conditions of the award shall remain as it is.
With the aforesaid, this Misc. Appeal stands disposed of.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ms/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 29-08-2022 05:12:23 PM