Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharda Devi vs Shivkumar Singh on 31 January, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MA No.1000/2012
(Sharda Devi & Another v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others)
Gwalior, Dated : 31.01.2019
Shri H.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri B.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.
3-Insurance Company.
IA No.16917/17 for deleting name of appellant no.2 from the array of the appellants is considered and allowed. Necessary corrections be made during the course of the day.
2. IA No.439/19 for enhancing valuation of the appeal is considered and allowed. Let necessary corrections be made during the course of the day.
3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by award dated 07.08.2012 passed in Claim Case No.116/2011 by the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar, District Bhind, whereby in an accident, which took place on 26.07.2011, wherein son of the claimants, namely, Dilip died, only a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects @ 40% is to be added to the notional income computed by the Tribunal. Similarly, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 18 will be applicable looking to the age of the deceased, whereas multiplier of 14 has been applied looking to the age of the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.1000/2012 (Sharda Devi & Another v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others) Gwalior, Dated : 31.01.2019 mother of the deceased, and though the minimum wages were to the tune of Rs.4,000/-, but even if the wages are kept constant, then also the appellant will be entitled to the enhancement.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on hyper technical ground that the Bus, which was having a permit to ply between Lahar and Bhind, had met with an accident in front of Vankhandeshwar Mandir, Lahar, Mihona Road at 9.30 A.M., whereas the correct time for the Bus to reach Bhind is 9.45 A.M. and, therefore, there was breach of condition of the permit.
6. Permit is defined in Section 2 (31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, definition of which reads as under :-
"Permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle."
7. It is not in dispute that the Bus in question, with which the accident had taken place, was having a permit; that means that the vehicle was authorized to be used as a transport vehicle and, therefore, merely a fortuitous circumstance of time lag will not be so fatal so as to treat that there was fundamental violation of the policy condition so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. Therefore, this condition of the Insurance Company that because of time lag there was violation of condition of permit exonerating them from their liability, cannot be sustained and is hereby 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.1000/2012 (Sharda Devi & Another v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others) Gwalior, Dated : 31.01.2019 rejected.
8. Since the income of the deceased has been accepted at Rs.3,000/- per month, then if 40% amount is added towards future prospects, then the monthly income will come out to Rs.4,200/- and since the deceased was a Bachelor, 50% will be treated to be the one which the deceased must have been spending on himself, therefore, the dependency will be at Rs.2,100/- per month, i.e., Rs. 25,200/- per year and when multiplier of 18, as per the age of the deceased, who was about 19 years of age, is applied, then the total compensation will come out to Rs.4,53,600/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- will be added under the conventional heads taking the total compensation to Rs.4,83,600/-, against which the Claims Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,62,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are in fact entitled to enhancement to the tune of Rs.2,21,600/-, but since the valuation has been made only for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Court fees has been accordingly paid, this Court is of the opinion that enhancement is to be restricted to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore, the claimant will be entitled to further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- to the award amount granted by the Claims Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain same.
(Vivek Agarwal)
meh/ Judge
MEHFOOZ
AHMED
2019.02.02
10:58:08
+05'30'