Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 50903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 659 of 2014 BETWEEN:- 1. NARESH SINGH S/O SHRI HAKIM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRAM RATHA KHERLI THANA MAHUA TAHSIL PORSA (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SMT. MUNNI W/O NARESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O GRAM RATHA KHERLI, THANA MAHUA, TEH. PORSA, (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (MR. ARVIND KUMAR MANGAL – ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS - CLAIMANTS) AND 1. AJAY SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR BANKHANDI ROAD PASS MEDICAL KE PAAS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. RAJKUMAR SINGH S/O SOVRAN SINGH BHADORIYA R/O PARK MOHALLA, GANDHINAGAR, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TH. BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE E-8 RECO INDUSTRIAL AREA,SITAPUR (RAJASTHAN) .....RESPONDENTS (MR. BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 – INSURANCE COMPANY) MISC. APPEAL No. 657 of 2014 BETWEEN:- 1. RAMSINGH S/O SHRI SHANKAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, GRAM BADPURA JAUHA TAHSIL AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SMT. SHEELA DEVI W/O RAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, GRAM BADAPURA JOUHA, AMBAH, MROENA (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. PAWAN S/O RAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, GRAM BADPURA JOUHA TEH. AMBAH, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (MR. ARVIND KUMAR MANGAL – ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS - CLAIMANTS) AND 1. AJAY SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGHTOMAR VANKHANDI ROAD PAAS MEDICAL KE PAAS, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. RAJKUMAR SINGH S/O SOVARAN SINGH BHADOURIA PARK MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR, (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SHRIRAM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. SAKHA PRABANDAK SAKHA KARYALAY 10003-E8, REEKO INDUSTRIAL AREA (RAJASTHAN) .....RESPONDENTS (MR. BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 – INSURANCE COMPANY) MISC. APPEAL No. 660 of 2014 BETWEEN:- 1. NARESH SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI HAKIM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRAM RATHA KHERLI THANA MAHUA TAHSIL PORSA (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SMT. MUNNI W/O SHRI NARESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, GRAM RATHA KHERLI THANA MAHUA TAHSIL PORSA MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. UMA SHANKAR S/O SHRI NARESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR TH. FATHER NARESH SINGH GRAM RATHA KHERLI THANA MAHUA TAHSIL PORSA MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (MR. ARVIND KUMAR MANGAL – ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS - CLAIMANTS) AND 1. AJAY SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR BANKHANDI ROAD PASS MEDICAL KE PAAS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. RAJKUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI SOVARAN SINGH PARK MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR, (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 10003-E 8 RIKO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPUR JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) .....RESPONDENTS (MR. BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 – INSURANCE COMPANY) MISC. APPEAL No. 661 of 2014 BETWEEN:- 1. SARNAM SINGH S/O RAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, GRAM BADAPURA JAUHA TEH.AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SMT. MAMTA W/O SHRI SARNAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, GRAM BADAPURA JAUHA TEH.AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (MR. ARVIND KUMAR MANGAL – ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS - CLAIMANTS) AND 1. AJAY SINGH TOMAR S/O RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR VANKHANDI ROAD PASS MEDICAL KE PAS (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. RAMKUMAR SINGH S/O SOVARAN SINGH PARK MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR, (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 10003-E 8 RIKO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPUR JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) .....RESPONDENTS (MR. BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 – INSURANCE COMPANY) …....................................................................................................................... These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
Meena Singhal,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine just and proper compensation for motor accident claims, considering factors such as income, dependency, future prospects, and burden of proof.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - The court set aside the impugned award and granted compensation to the appellants-claimants based on the evidence and legal principles. The court also determined the just and proper compensation for each appellant-claimant based on the deceased's income, dependency, future prospects, and other relevant factors.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed to challenge the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants-claimants for compensation on account of death in a road traffic accident. The claimants argued that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, while the insurance company supported the tribunal's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claims tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim petitions, as the evidence and legal principles indicated otherwise. The court also determined the just and proper compensation for each appellant-claimant based on the deceased's income, dependency, future prospects, and other relevant factors.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claims tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petitions, and the determination of just and proper compensation for each appellant-claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various case laws to establish that the claimants had discharged their initial burden and the insurance company failed to contradict their version. The court also considered the deceased's income, dependency, future prospects, and other relevant factors to determine the compensation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned award, granted compensation to the appellants-claimants, and determined the just and proper compensation for each appellant-claimant based on the deceased's income, dependency, future prospects, and other relevant factors.
JUDGEMENT
Since common question of law is involved in aforesaid M.A. Nos. 659 of 2014, 657 of 2014, 660 of 2014 and 661 of 2014, therefore, they are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in M.A. No. 659 of 2014 are taken into consideration.
These appeals have been filed assailing the award dated 06.5.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 03/2012 filed by the appellants - claimants of M.A. No.659 of 2014 for grant of compensation on account of death of Smt. Kamini, Claim Case No. 05/2012 filed by the appellants - claimants of M.A. No.657 of 2014 for grant of compensation on account of death of Raju @ Rajendra Singh, Claim Case No. 04/2012 filed by the appellants - claimants of M.A. No.660 of 2014 for grant of compensation on account of death of Nagendra Singh, and Claim Case No.06/2012 filed by the appellants - claimants of M.A. No.661 of 2014 for grant of compensation on account of death of Ankit Singh, in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.12.2011 involving offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.MP30-P-0144. At the time of accident, respondent No. 1 – Ajay Singh Tomar was the owner, respondent No. 2 – Rajkumar Singh was the driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 - insurance company. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. In addition, they further stated that in case it is found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
Insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that offending vehicle was being plied in violation of policy terms and conditions, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
Learned claims tribunal after hearing the rival parties and going through the evidence available on record dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants – claimants argued that learned claims tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petitions ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimants. It is further argued that on the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses as well as documents, it is proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.
2 – driver of Bus No. MP30-P-0144, however, learned claims tribunal on the basis of assumptions and surmises dismissed the claim petitions, which is against the settled principle of law. Further argument is that learned claims tribunal has also assessed the income of the deceased persons on the lesser side as well as appellants – claimants are also entitled for compensation under the heads of future prospects and in other heads as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors; 2017 ACJ 2700. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned award and grant just and proper compensation to the appellants – claimants.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned award and argued that learned claims tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and no interference is warranted in the same. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeals. Heard and perused the record.
In the case in hand, learned claims tribunal dismissed the claim petitions mainly on the grounds that four persons were travelling on the motorcycle which was allegedly hit by Bus No. MP30-P-0144 and it was a head on collision between the motorcycle and bus, therefore, the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motorcycle and not by the driver of Bus No. MP30-P-0144. However, material available on record indicat
