IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL ON THE 1^st OF JULY, 2022 MISC. APPEAL No. 2494 of 2012 Between:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

OCCUPATION: PARYAVAS BHAWAN JON 11 JAIL ROAD M.P.NAGAR BHOPAL TH:ASSTT.MANAGER DIV.OFFICE 290 NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI DINESH KAUSHAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. SANJAY RAID DEAD TH:LRS ANEETA RAI W/O LATE SANJAI RAI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BADIA KHEDI SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ROHAN RAI S/O LATE SANJAY RAI OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH MOTHER ANNETARAI BADIA KHEDI TAH.&DISTT.

SEHORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RONAK RAI S/O LATE SANJAY RAI OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH MOTHER ANNETARAI BADIA KHEDI TAH.&DISTT.

SEHORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMANUJ CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Signature Not Verified SAN Motor Vehicle Act being aggrieved of award dated 04.01.2012 passed by Date: 2022.07.08 18:41:30 IST learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sehore in Claim Case No.1/2010.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Sanjay Rai had met with an accident and when he was travelling in a Ambulance then met with second accident which ultimately resulted in his death. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) under the head of permanent disability whereas in a death case there was no requirement to award any amount under the head of permanent disability.

Similarly, it is submitted that there is a calculation mistake and Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) more due to calculation mistake.

Thus, it is submitted that there is a requirement to reduce compensation by a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and that will meet ends of justice. It is also submitted that multiplier of 15 should have been applied and not 16 as applied by the learned claims Tribunal. Even computation of income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month for an accident which took place on 02.02.2009 is disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ramanuj Choubey, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn, submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award calling for any interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that accident took place on 16.08.2010. On the date of the accident, claimant was working as a 'Tailor' which is a skilled job. As per the Signature Not Verified SAN minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer on 02.02.2009, prescribed wages were Rs.3900/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five) per month and, therefore, computation of income at Rs.4000/- per month cannot be faulted with.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the basis of the affidavit of the claimant Sanjay Rai has submitted that in his affidavit he accepted his age to be 37 years and, therefore, age of the claimant should have been treated to be

37 years.

The fact of the matter is that in the affidavit under order 18 Rule 4 of CPC sworn on 15.09.2010 Sanjay Rai has mentioned his age to be 35 years. Cross-examination was carried after a year. Thus, if approximate age was mentioned as 37 years in the cross examination that has no relevance because in all the medical papers age of the claimant is mentioned as 35 years or less. Thus, treating age of the claimant to be 35 years multiplier of 16 has been rightly applied.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that claimant later on died because of another accident and, therefore, no amount is payable under the head of permanent disability especially when compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of income.

This argument put forth by learned Insurance Company deserve