Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 497
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sudama Devi (Smt.) v. Surendra Sharma
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 504 of 2017 (G); Decided on 16.3.2020*
R.P. Gupta for appellants; Shrinivas Gajendragadkar for respondent No. 3; B.K. Agrawal for respondent No. 6.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 163A Schedule II and 168 -- death case -- deceased aged 55 years -- died in vehicular accident -- his income notionally assessed as unskilled labourer -- Claims Tribunal rightly assessed yearly income of deceased as Rs. 39,900/- -- only wife of deceased, i.e., appellant No. 1 dependent upon him -- appellant No. 2 major son not dependent upon him -- 50% deducted for personal expenses of deceased -- not self-employed -- not entitled for future prospects -- total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,27,600/- awarded by Claims Tribunal reduced to Rs. 2,89,450/- -- appellant No. 2 entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. 2018 (I) JLJ 200 (SC) and 2007 (2) TAC 431 (SC) followed. [Paras 7, 11 & 12]
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 163d f}rh; vuqlwph rFkk 168 & e`R;q dk ekeyk & e`rd 55 o"kZ vk;q dk & ;ku nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q & mldh vk; dkYifud :i ls vdq'ky Jfed ds :i esa fu/kkZfjr & nkok vf/kdj.k us e`rd dh okf"kZd vk; #i;s 39]900@& Bhd&gh fu/kkZfjr dh & dsoy e`rd dh iRuh vFkkZr~ vihykfFkZuh Øekad 1 ml ij vkfJr & vihykFkhZ Øekad 2 o;Ld iq= ml ij vkfJr ugha & e`rd ds O;fDrxr O;;ksa ds fy, 50 Áfr'kr dh dVkSrh & LofUk;ksftr ugha & Hkkoh ÁR;k'kk dk gdnkj ugha & nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu.khZr dqy Áfrdj dh jde #i;s 4]27]600@& de dj #i;s 2]89]450@& dh xbZ & vihykFkhZ Øekad 2 Áfrdj ds :i esa #i;s 50]000@& dk gdnkjA 2018 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 200 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ rFkk 2007 ¼2½ Vh , lh 431 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7] 11 ,oa 12½
ORDER
1. This miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 23.1.2017 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 269/2014 for enhancement of compensation amount.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that the New India Assurance Company Limited as well as the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had filed MA No. 533/2017 and MA No. 421/2017 against the same award, which were decided by order dated 7.1.2020. Since notices of this appeal were not issued, therefore, while deciding the liability of the Insurance Company, it was held as under:
"3. These appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The claimants have also filed an appeal, which has been registered as MA No. 504/2017. Since notices of the appeal filed by the claimants (MA No. 504/2017) were not issued, therefore, today hearing of the said appeal has been deferred and the counsel for the respective Insurance Companies have accepted the notice on behalf of their Insurance Company. In these appeals filed by the Insurance Companies they have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under the miscellaneous head. Since hearing of the appeal filed by the claimants has been deferred and the question of quantum is yet to be decided in that appeal, therefore, in order to avoid any conflicting judgments with regard to the amount of compensation, the grounds with regard to the quantum of compensation raised by the Insurance Company in these appeals is kept open and shall be decided while deciding the appeal filed by the claimants."
3. Therefore, arguments of the parties on the question of quantum shall be considered in the light of the liberty granted by this Court in MA No. 533/2017 and MA No. 421/2017.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the deceased Bhairo Singh was aged about 55 years and he was a Milk Vendor and cattle businessman and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/-, however, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased As Rs. 3,325/-, whereas according to the schedule, the monthly income of an unskilled labourer is Rs. 4,945/- and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 4,945/-. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2018 ACJ 5 has held that even where the notional income of a deceased is calculated on the basis of guess work, still the future prospects are payable.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the Insurance Companies that the Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount under the miscellaneous heads which is liable to be reduced to Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. By referring to paragraph 41 of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Claims Tribunal itself had found that the appellant no.1 is dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, should have calculated the monthly expenses of the deceased as 50%.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the claim of the claimants that the deceased was in the business of selling milk and, therefore, has notionally assessed his income as an unskilled labourer. Second schedule of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was inserted in the year 1994 and the yearly notional income was assessed as Rs. 15,000/-. In the present case the accident took place on 5.3.2013 and the Claims Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 39,900 (Rs. 3,325 X 12). Thus, this C
