Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1246 (MP)

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. v. Pavan Devi

2015-12-15

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2015
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 16.9.2010 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P) in Claim Case No. MVC89/2010 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.8,22,600/- in case of death of the husband of the appellant No.1, father of appellants No.2 to 4 and the son of appellants No.5 to 6 namely Gautam Paswan who met with an accident on 6.8.2009 and died in the said accident. 2. On perusal of the record it appears that the Tribunal accepted the earning of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- being a driver and after deduction of 1/4th looking to number of dependent and as per his age i.e. 38 years applying the multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.8,10,000/- in the head of loss of dependency and Rs.12,600/- in the other heads. However, being aggrieved by the grant of excessive amount of compensation this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 3. On perusal of the record it appears that after condonation of delay, notices were issued to the claimants and on receiving the same cross objection has been filed within the period of limitation claiming an amount in addition to the award of compensation in conventional heads in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others [ (2013)9 SCC 54 ]. 4. “In view of the aforesaid facts and by the consent of both the parties the case is finally heard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that without having any document and cogent evidence brought on record, the earning of the deceased of Rs.6,000/- as accepted by the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, the compensation calculated in the head of loss of dependency accepting the said earning may be reasonably reduced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent/claimant contends that looking to the statement of AW-3 namely Nathulal Jaiswal who was paying Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased, the amount of Rs.6,000/- has rightly been accepted by the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid, it is urged that in the head of future prospects, the amount as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side, therefore, it may be reasonably enhanced. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, it is urged that in the head of future prospects, the amount as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side, therefore, it may be reasonably enhanced. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the statement of AW3 Nathulal Jaiswal, it reveals that he was paying Rs.6,000/- but in absence of having any commercial driving license the said plea is not acceptable. In any case, looking to the date of death, earning of the deceased at the relevant point of time may be accepted at Rs.4,500/- per month similar to the wages payable to the skilled persons then the per annum earning comes to Rs.54,000/-. Looking to the number of dependent if 1/5th is deducted, which comes to Rs.10,500/- then the loss of dependency per annum comes to Rs.43,500/- as per the age and if multiplier of 15 is applied then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,52,500/-, in the light of the“judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others [ (2013)9 SCC 54 ], in other heads if Rs.1,50,000/- is further added then the compensation comes to Rs.8,02,500/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the amount of compensation Rs.8,22,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justified. Therefore, interference in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company assailing the quantum and to reduce the said amount, do not warrant any interference. Simultaneously, the cross objection also do not warrant interference as the same has been duly considered. In view of the above, it is disposed of. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.8,22,600/- appears to be just and proper. 10. However, the appeal and cross objection filed by the appellant as well as the claimants stands disposed of.