Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurances Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Kiran Gaur on 1 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1st OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 2029 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCES CO. LTD. THR.
BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DINESH KOSHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. KIRAN GAUR W/O MAHESH SHARMA
GAUR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 106 SBI DOUBLE
STOREY COLONY BALDEVBAGH NEAR VASU
DAIRY DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHESH SHARAN GOUR S/O LTE BHANVRILAL
GAUR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 106 SBI DOUBLE
STOREY COLONY BALDEVBAGH NEAR VASU
DAIRY DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KESHAV SINGH BAGHEL S/O INDRA SINGH
B AG H EL VILLAGE GRAM GADESH NAGAR
MADIYA THANA BARNHAL DISTT. MENPURI
(UTTAR PRADESH)
4. M/S L.G BROTHERS LAURI SERVICES UNIT NO.
1 M.C.D BUILDING DESHBANDHU GUPTA ROAD
PAHADGANJ (DELHI)
5. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. NEAR
TAIYAB ALI PETROL PUMP NAUDRA BRIDGE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 BY SHRI VINEET KUMAR MISHRA,
ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified (RESPONDENT NO.5 BY SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN SHARMA,
ADVOCATE)
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.11.01 18:55:42 IST
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
2
following:
ORDER
This Miscellenous Appeal is filed by the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited being aggrieved of common award dated 21.1.2020 passed by learned XVI Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.A.C.C No.2194/2016, M.A.C.C No.2195/2016, M.A.C.C No.2196/2016 & M.A.C.C No.2197/2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited has put forth his first argument that the Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of the Driver of the Container No.HR-74-3839, namely, Keshav Singh, who was examined as Non Applicant Witness No.1 on 18.10.2019 wherein he specifically alleges the factum of the contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the Indica Car resulting in the said accident. He submits that if the aforesaid fact would have been taken into consideration then the compensation would have been reduced and the liability of th present appellant would have been reduced or distributed on the principle of contributory negligence.
Learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited has put forth his second argument that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not accepting the fact that the parents of the deceased Manish Singh Gour were not financially dependent on him. Since they are parents of the deceased, therefore, no compensation should have been awarded in their favour.
Learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited has put forth his third argument that some medical bills have been Signature Not Verified SAN accepted by the Claims Tribunal though they were filed in duplicate overlooking Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.11.01 18:55:42 IST the fact that the deceased was an employee of the State Bank of India and some 3 reimbursement was obtained from the State Bank of India for those medical bills.
Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 have supported the common award dated 21.1.2020 passed by learned XVI Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.A.C.C No.2194/2016, M.A.C.C No.2195/2016, M.A.C.C No.2196/2016 & M.A.C.C No.2197/2016.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the Claims Tribunal, it is evident that Keshav Singh (NAW.1) admits in Paragraph No.4 of his cross-examination that he had never reported this fact to the Police that it was a case of contributory negligence and the Driver of the Indica Car had come on his own and had collided with Container No.HR-74- 3839. He admits that he had never made any report or complaint to the Police or the Office of Superintendent of Police that for the fault of the Driver of the Indica Car, he is being falsely prosecuted. The Spot Map available on record as Exhibit P/6, contradicts the statement of the Driver of the Container No.HR-74- 3839, namely, Keshav Singh and on the contrary, there is one eye-witness, who was examined on behalf of the claimant, namely, Hina Rohatgi, who is supporting the factum of mistake on the part of the Driver of Container No.HR-
74-3839, namely, Keshav Singh. In her cross-examination, nothing substantial has been extracted so as to point out that she was giving incorrect statement and, therefore, the first ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited that it was a case of contributory negligence Signature Not Verified SAN is not made out.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.11.01 18:55:42 ISTAs far as the second ground in regard to dependency is concerned, the 4 legal heirs are defined in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which would mean a person, who in law represents the estate of the deceased and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
When definition of the legal heirs is taken into consideration and examined in the light of the facts of the present case then it is apparent that not only Manish Singh Gour died but on account of injury sustained by his wife, she was under depression and committed suicide. It is different that the Claims Tribunal has only awarded compensation for the amount spent on her treatment and has not treated it to be case of accidental death. Similarly, Manish Singh Gour lost his children and, therefore, qua Manish Singh Gour, his parents will be dependent especially the mother as per the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned award in treating the parents of deceased Manish Singh Gour to be his dependents and, therefore, the second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited is also not made out.
There is no evidence on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company to point out as to which of the medical bills were cleared by the State Bank of India and which of the medical bills were produced in duplicate to claim additional amount, which was already paid by the State Bank of India and, therefore, in absence of any evidence available on record, the third ground raised by the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited is also not made Signature Not Verified SAN out.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAINAccordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed. Date: 2022.11.01 18:55:42 IST 5 Parties to bear their own costs as incurred in this Miscellaneous Appeal. Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.11.01 18:55:42 IST