Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 629 (MP)

Vandana v. Bharat Singh

2019-08-30

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by award dated 19.5.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No.20088/2016. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has considered wages of the deceased on the date of the accident i.e. 26.3.2016 at Rs. 4,000/- per month against the minimum wages of Rs. 6,575/-. It is also submitted that age of the deceased has been considered to be above 50 years, whereas deceased had not completed 50 years of age, inasmuch as in para 30 of the impugned award a photo copy of driving licence of the deceased has been produced in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 8.8.1966, therefore, he had not completed 50 years of age and this will be entitled to a multiplier of 13 instead of 11, as has been applied by learned Claims Tribunal. 3. It is also submitted that since deceased is survived by four dependents, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/4 deduction should have been made from the notional income of the deceased rather than 1/3, which has been made by learned Claims Tribunal. It is also submitted that Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 43,100/- towards the treatment, which deceased had undertaken and therefore, same amount should be continued. Learned counsel for the appellants also fairly conceded that though under miscellaneous heads a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been awarded but claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.70,000/- in the light of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi as reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270. It is also submitted that claimants are entitled to add 25% in the notional income of the deceased on account of he being below 50 years of age on the date of the accident as per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned award and that needs to be maintained except reducing the amount under miscellaneous heads from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned award and that needs to be maintained except reducing the amount under miscellaneous heads from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Haryana & Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and others as reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484 to highlight the ratio of law that compensation must be “just and reasonable” i.e. proportionate to “damages” in the real sense. It should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that driving licence has been produced on record that has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company and that is an authentic and acceptable piece of evidence to compute date of birth as compare to the age mentioned in the postmortem report because age mentioned in the postmortem report is approximate and not actual and it cannot be said that who had given such age to the doctor performing such postmortem. 6. As far as minimum wages are concerned, in March 2016 they were to the tune of Rs. 6,575/- for unskilled labourer and therefore, that can be safely taken for the purpose of computation. When 1/4 is deducted towards the amount being spent by the deceased on self looking to the fact that there are four dependents on the deceased, his notional dependency per month comes out to Rs. 4931.25. When 25% of this is added towards future prospects, then the total dependency of the claimants of the deceased comes out to Rs. 6164.06 per month or Rs. 73,968.75 per year. When multiplier of 13, as has been prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), is applied, then total compensation under the head of loss of income comes out to Rs. 9,61,593.75 or rounded of Rs. 9,61,594/-. Over and above claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the miscellaneous heads and another sum of Rs. 43,100/- as has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of treatment expenses taking total compensation to Rs. 10,74,694/- against a sum of Rs. 5,20,100/-. Thus, claimants are entitled for an escalation of Rs. 9,61,594/-. Over and above claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the miscellaneous heads and another sum of Rs. 43,100/- as has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of treatment expenses taking total compensation to Rs. 10,74,694/- against a sum of Rs. 5,20,100/-. Thus, claimants are entitled for an escalation of Rs. 5,54,594/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred & Ninety Four Only), which be paid to the claimants. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition, as has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification, appeal is disposed of. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.