Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Asha Devi Potdar and others
Miscellaneous Appeals No.3432 and 3900 of 2006 (Indore);
Decided on 8.5.2017.
Held : At the time of filing of the claim case, age of the claimants No.1 and 2 were about 50 to 55 years, therefore, the multiplier of 11 was taken into consideration. Now, more than 13 years have been passed and it has been informed that they are still alive and the grandfather of Vishal Potdar is also alive today. Age of deceased at the time of death is also liable to be taken into consideration for deciding multiplier. That Vishal was only 25 years 8 months old at the time of death, therefore, the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate.
Where the deceased was bachelor and claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. 2006 ACJ 1058, 2017 ACT 697, 2015 ACJ 1239, 2015 ACJ 1985, 2009 ACJ 1298 and 2013 ACJ 1253 referred to.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 && chek daiuh }kjk izfrdj dh ek=k dks vk{ksfir djrs gq, rFkk mldh o`f) ds fy, nkosnkjksa }kjk vihysa && nksonkjksa dk lqf'kf{kr] iq= viuh Loa; dh daiuh es dk;Zikyd dh e`R;q && vf/kdj.k us mldk osru :-34]250@& Bhd gh fopkj esa fy;k && Hkfo"; dh vk; ds 'kh"kZ esa jde :-20]000@& fopkj esa yh tk ldrh gS && mldk ekfld osru :-54]250@& gksxk rFkk okf"kZd vk; :-6]51]000@& gksxh && e`rd dh e`R;q ds le; vk;q dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, 15 dk xq.kkad leqfpr gksxk && vfookfgr gksus ls e`rd ds O;fDrxr [kpksZ ds fy, dVkSrh 1@2 && izfrdj dh jde esa :-20]35]000@& ls dqy :-49]37]500@& rd dh o`f) dh xbZ && chek daiuh }kjk izLrqr vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nkos dk ekeyk izLrqr djrs le; nkosnkj Ø-1 ,oa 2 dh vk;q yxHkx 50 rFkk 55 o"kZ Fkh] blfy, 11 dk xq.kd fopkj esa fy;k x;k FkkA vc 13 o"kZ ls vf/kd O;rhr gks x, rFkk ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k fd os vc Hkh thfor gS ,oa fo'kky iksn~nkj ds nknk vkt thfor gSA e`rd dh e`R;q ds le; vk;q Hkh xq.kd dk fofu'p; djus ds fy, fopkj esa ysus ;ksX; gS fd fo'kky e`R;q ds le; 25 o"kZ 8 ekg dk Fkk blfy, 15 dk xq.kd leqfpr gksxkA
tc e`rd vfookfgr Fkk rFkk nkosnkj ekrk&firk gS] dVkSrh ,d fHkUu fl)akr dk vuqlj.k djrh gSA vfookfgrksa ds laca/k esa lkekU;r% O;fDrxr rFkk thfor jgus ds [kpksZ ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh dh tkrh gS D;ksafd vfookfgr dk Loa; ij vf/kd [kpZ djus dh vkSj >qdko gksrk gSA 2006 , lh ts 1058] 2017 , lh Vh 697] 2015 , lh ts 1239] 2015 , lh ts 1985] 2009 , lh ts 1298 rFkk 2013 , lh ts 1253 fufnZ"VA
1. Both the miscellaneous appeals are arising out of the award dated 23.8.2016, passed in the Claim Case No.37/2006, hence, both the appeals are being decided co-jointly.
2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.3432/2006 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (claimants). The Miscellaneous Appeal No.3900/2006 has been filed by the claimants No.1 and 2 for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. For disposal of these two appeals, the facts from Miscellaneous Appeal 3900/2006 are being taken which are as under :
4. On 22.9.2004, at about 2:15 p.m. near Yadav Dhaba Indore-Dhar Road, Gram Billor a Car bearing registration No.MP09/T-0363 had an accident with a Truck bearing registration No.MP09/K/5863. The said car was owned by non-appellant No.4 and driven by late Gauri Shankar. Both the Car and Truck were insured by Oriental Insurance Company. In the said accident Mr. Anil Mittal, Mrs. Mridula Mittal, Ku. Amrita Mittal and Mr. Vishal Potdar received grievous injuries and immediately they were taken to Choithram Hospital. Due to the said accident Kumari Amrita Mittal died on the way to hospital and Mr. Anil Mittal and Mr. Vishal Potdar died on 22.9.2004 in Choithram Hospital during their treatment. Their dead bodies were sent for the post-mortem by the police after lodging the FIR in Betma Police Station, District Indore.
5. After getting the information about said accident, appellants No.1 and 2 the claimants i.e. mother and father of Vishal Potdar came to Indore from Mumbai and took his dead body to Mumbai to perform last rites.
6. Appellants No.1 and 2 respondent No.1 filed claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore which was registered as Claim Case No.68/2005. According to the claimant, after acquiring the degree of BMA from Drexel University, USA in the year 2003. Vishal has started his career as Executive in Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., Mumbai w.e.f. 1.7.2003 on salary of Rs.34,250/- per month. At the time of death of Vishal was aged about 25 years 8 months. His future was very bright, he could have been promoted to the post of Executive Officer with the salary of Rs.1.00 lac. He was only son of claimants, therefore, they were totally dependent on his income. The truck was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and dashed the car due to which Vishal has died. Before the MACT, Indore, the claimants have claimed the amount of Rs.2.50 crore under different heads as compensation.
7. After notice, the Oriental Insurance Company filed the reply opposing the compensation on the ground that it is highly excessive and on a higher side. In support of the claim, claimants has got exhibited as many as 58 documents including passport, salary certificate, income tax return of late Vishal Potdar. Claimant No.1 examined himself as PW1, Ashok Jalaan as PW2, Surendra S. Shetty as PW3, Ramesh Sisodiya as PW4.
8. Insurance Company did not examined any witness and did not produce any document in the claim case. Learned MACT has passed the award dated 23.8.2008 by recording the finding that Vishal Potdar has died due to the accident caused by the truck driver while driving the truck rashly and negligently. There was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the truck and the claimants are entitled to get the compensation. Learned MACT has awarded the amount of Rs.20.35 lacs as compensation along with the interest @ 6% from 13.4.2005 till payment. Learned MACT while assessing the compensation has considered the income of Vishal Potdar as Rs.34,456/- per month (Rs.5.40 lacs per annum) on the basis of salary certificate and income tax return. Looking to the age of claimants No.1 and 2 as 50 and 55 years, multiplier of 11 was applied and since Vishal Potdar was unmarried, therefore, the dependency was assessed as 1/3rd i.e
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
