Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Jatav vs Brajesh on 25 April, 2019
1
M.A. No.94/2017 & M.A. No.987/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No.94/2017
(Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi & Ors)
M.A. No.987/2017
(Ravi Jatav Vs. Brajesh & Ors.)
Gwalior, dated: 25.04.2019
M.A. No.94/2017
Shri Neerendra Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance company.
Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
M.A. No.987/2017
Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Naresh Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance company.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.94/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by award dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No.195/2015, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the claimant Ravi S/o Mansharam Jatav. Another Miscellaneous Appeal i.e. M.A. No.987/2017 has been field by the claimant seeking enhancement of the award being aggrieved by the same award.
2. As far as learned counsel for the Insurance Company is concerned, it is submitted that he is challenging the award on twin grounds, namely that the Claims Tribunal has directed for payment of 2 M.A. No.94/2017 & M.A. No.987/2017 claim amount within a period of two months from the date of the award, failing which it is directed that award shall carry interest at the rate of 11%. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bbahadur and others as reported in 2004 (2) SCC 370. Next ground, which has been taken by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that tractor has been falsely implicated, inasmuch as incident had taken place on 26.12.2013, whereas report was lodged on 27.12.2013 and there are no crush injuries, which could have been caused if tractor would have over run the leg/feet of the claimant. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of M.P., Bench Gwalior in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kalawati and others as reported in 2014 ACJ 2772 and it is submitted that since tractor has been falsely implicated therefore, insurance company needs to be exonerated.
3. Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant submits that though Insurance Company has examined Investigator but Investigator did not bother to visit District Hospital, whose papers were on record, to find out as to whether any treatment was taken by the deceased at the hospital or not. Merely on the basis of certain photographs, which were taken by the Investigator namely Shri Brajesh Mishra, that too on 29.09.2014, after more than nine months of the accident, he has opined that such incident had not taken place 3 M.A. No.94/2017 & M.A. No.987/2017 due to involvement of the tractor, which was insured with the insurance company.
4. It is submitted that insurance company is trying to wriggle out on the basis of tutored, half-baked and incomplete report. It is pointed out that the treatment papers are on record and discharge ticket (Ex.P/10) was brought on record, wherein date of admission has been shown as 27.12.2013 and date of discharge is 01.02.2014 but Investigator never bothered to even visit the District Hospital and verify disability certificate (Ex.P/11) issued by the District Medical Board, Morena.
5. It is also submitted that statement of victim and his father were recorded by the Claims Tribunal after the date of Investigation Report i.e. 29.09.2014 and no such suggestion was given to the claimant that such injury was not caused due to accident with a tractor. It is also submitted that tractor was fitted with harrow, which is a farming equipment that is pulled over land that has been turned over to break up the earth before planting, if such harrow attached to a tractor causes injury, then the type of injury, which has been caused to the injured, is explainable, but there is no investigation on this line and to that extent, investigation carried at the behest of the insurance company is incomplete/inconclusive.
6. It is also submitted that on the date of the accident i.e. 26.12.2013, notional income of the injured has been considered at 4 M.A. No.94/2017 & M.A. No.987/2017 Rs.3,000/- p.m., whereas the minimum income on the date of the accident was to the tune of Rs.5,500/- and therefore when income is computed @ Rs.5,500/-, which was the minimum wages on the date of the accident, then annual income will come out to Rs.66,000/-. Since the Tribunal has considered disability to 20%, then the loss of annual income will come out to Rs.13,200/- p.a. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 and when such multiplier is applied, then claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- in place of Rs.1,08,000/- on account of loss of income. Therefore, even if a single parameter is taken into consideration i.e. minimum wages then there will be enhancement of claim amount by a sum of Rs.90,000/-. Besides this, no amount has been awarded under the head of transportation, therefore a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be just and proper under this head looking to the long hospitalization, treatment a Morena, which is about 35 kilometers from Jaura, native place of the injured.
7. Since the claimant has already been compensated under the head of attendant and nutritious diet, therefore, learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that if the enhancement is pegged at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), they will be too happy to except enhancement and shall not press for any further relief.
8. In view of such discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. M.A.No.94/2017 being devoid of merit on the issue of involvement of tractor deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. The 5 M.A. No.94/2017 & M.A. No.987/2017 argument put forward by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri N.S.Tomar that there can not be any penal interest in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Bbahadur (supra), deserves to be accepted and is accepted and accordingly, it is directed that Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 6% but it is expected that looking to the beneficial nature of legislation Insurance Company shall if not already paid promptly pay the claim not later than two months from today.
9. As far as appeal filed by the claimant i.e. M.A.No.987/2017 is concerned, it is directed that claimant will be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the reasons assigned above and to that extent appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and disposed of.
(Vivek Agarwal)
SP Judge
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2019.05.01
18:24:07 +05'30'