Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tofan Singh S/O Chatar Singh Through … on 5 August, 2025
1 MA-694-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 694 of 2025
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
TOFAN SINGH S/O CHATAR SINGH THROUGH WIFE SMT. SITABAI
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gautam Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1](Caveat).
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to
press I.A. No.6467/2025. Hence, I.A. No.6467/2025 is dismissed as not
pressed.
2. The appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal against the
award dated 10.12.2024 passed in MACC No.1957/2020 challenging the
quantum of compensation and the award of interest on the amount of future
prospects.
3. The respondent No.1 has filed cross objection vide document
No.2234/2025, which is barred by 5 days for which an application i.e. I.A.
No.2364/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. On due
consideration, I.A. No.2364/2025 is allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing
the cross-objection is hereby condoned.
4. The short facts of the case are that on 14.03.2020 at around 09.30 p.m.,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
2 MA-694-2025
injured Tofan Singh was going by his motorcycle from village-Tarana to
Darji Karaadiya, when he reached village-Tarana Chouraha at Ujjain Road a
Car registration No.MP09-WD-5427 came from the side of Ujjain which was
being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
into the motorcycle of respondent No.1 because of which he sustained
grievous injuries on various parts of his body including fracture in right leg
and grievous injury on the head. The respondent No.1 was admitted in Raj
Shree Hospital, Indore where he was operated upon for his injuries on head
and leg and as there was no improvement, he was referred to CHL Hospital,
Indore where he was repeatedly operated upon his head, nevertheless, he
remained in coma. Even presently also he is under treatment. Respondent no.
1 claimed that at the time of accident, he was healthy youth of 34 years
working as labourer and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
5. The respondent No.1/claimant filed claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid
accident. The claims tribunal after considering the evidence available on
record and after recording the present situation of the respondent No.1, who
was brought before the claims tribunal on 02.02.2024 i.e. 8 days prior to
delivery of the award, recorded that respondent No.1 was brought before the
tribunal on stretcher in unconscious position. There was a tube inserted in the
nose of the respondent No.1 for feeding him liquid diet. He was in a very
serious condition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to para Nos. 55 to 57
submits that the income of the appellant has been assessed on higher side. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
3 MA-694-2025
submits by referring to para 55 that claims tribunal has disbelieved the claim
of respondent No.1 regarding his income as Rs.20000-25000/- per month and
after disbelieving the same fixed his income on notional basis by treating
him an unskilled labourer at Rs.7950/- per month which was based on the
instructions issued by the State Government regarding minimum wages for
unskilled labourer. He submits that this amount of Rs.7950/- fixed by the
claims tribunal is at very higher side and it should have been only Rs.5000/-
per month. His further contention is that the claims tribunal has awarded
interest on the amount of compensation granted in the head of future
prospects which should not have been granted for the reason that what is
accrued in future should not be counted for grant of increment/interest.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the
claims tribunal should have taken the income of the respondent
No.1/claimant at Rs.20,000/- per month because on the date of accident, he
was a healthy person of 34 years of age and was earning around Rs.20,000-
25,000/- per month by doing work of labourer. He further submits that the
claims tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.3 Lacs for attendant
charges whereas in terms of para 49 the claims tribunal has assessed the
permanent disability of the respondent No.1 to the extent of 100%. He
submits that not only the respondent No.1 is required to be attended for rest
of his life by a person but he shall have to be given medical attention at all
times looking to his peculiar condition. He submits that there should have
been substantial increase in the amount of attender. He further submits that
the condition of respondent No.1 is elaborately recorded by the claims
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
4 MA-694-2025
tribunal in para 3 and 21 and even PW-4 Dr. Ankit Mathur, who was treating
doctor has also elaborated the situation of respondent No.1. In addition, Dr.
Abhay Paliwal AW-3 who issued permanent disability certificate Ex.P-27
has also described the situation of respondent No.1. In such circumstances,
he prays for enhancement of compensation particularly in the head of
attendant looking to the peculiar circumstances of the respondent No.1 and
facts of the case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company is about the income as assessed by the claims
tribunal. It is seen from the findings recorded in para 57 of the award that
there is specific reference material based on which the income at Rs.7590/-
has been assessed by the claims tribunal. It is trite law that in absence of any
material evidence available on record, guidance from the statutory authority
prescribing minimum wages such as the Labour Commissioner or even State
Legal Services Authority can be taken. There is nothing wrong in taking
support of guidelines for ascertaining the income, it not only provides
uniformity in grant of compensation but also takes into account the inflation
and present fiscal situation. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Hans Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (SLP (C) No.3511 of
2020) has considered the same in following words:-
“in absence of any material for proving the income of the deceased/injured
the support of guidelines issued by State Legal Services Authority can be
taken”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
5 MA-694-2025
As such on this count, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
is discarded.
10. As regards the grant of interest on future prospects, Hon’ble Apex
Court has already decided this issue in the case of Orient Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Niru and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1431, that interest should be
granted even in the amount of compensation awarded under the head of
future prospects. As such, this ground also does not holds any water.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on notional
income no future prospect can be added. The arguments of the appellant are
not based on any law. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the
question of award of future prospects in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 did not bifurcate the
assessment of income in two different categories i.e one based on material
available on record and the other on notional basis. The plain and simple
mandate of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay
S e t h i is that according to the age brackets provided commensurate
percentage of future prospects should be added in the income of the
deceased/injured. As such, this contention is also discarded.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 while stressing upon the
enhancement of compensation for attendant has relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jithendran Vs. New India Insurance
Company, 2021 ACJ 2736 and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon
and another, 2022 ACJ 1995. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the
aspect of the attender has observed in para 8 in the case of Jithendran (supra)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
6 MA-694-2025
as under:-
“8. As earlier noted, the appellant has suffered 69%permanent
disability and without assistance, cannot perform everyday
functions. The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and
physical capabilities would surely need full time assistance even
for the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, the
disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous
services of his well- wishers and family members. Importantly, the
presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the claimant
would require the assistance of a bystander/attendant for all his
movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the need for assisted
living and what was said in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others1,
it is found necessary to add the expenses for service of an
attendant for the claimant. Since no material is produced to
quantify the expenses for the attendant,making a conservative
estimate, Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be the bare minimum. It
is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify the annual expenses at
Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of 18, the additional
compensation payable under the bystander head is quantified at
Rs.10,80,000/-.”
13. In the present case, the respondent No.1 was of 34 years of age at the
time of the accident on 14.03.2020. It is more than 5 years since the date of
accident. As informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, as
seen from the evidence available on record, the injured-claimant is still on
bed and he is not able to move without the support of an attender. In such
circumstances and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the above
judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to grant further amount of
compensation.
14. The claims tribunal while considering the question of expenses for
attender has recorded in para 76, 77 and 78 its consideration by referring to
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jithendran (supra)
that Rs.5000/- per month was taken as expenditure for attender and by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
7 MA-694-2025
considering the period of 5 years, a total some of Rs.3 Lacs has been
awarded to the respondent No.1 in the head of compensation for attendant.
15. Looking to the fact that the respondent No.1 is already on bed for the
last 5 years and is still suffering from his injuries and there is no possibility
of him being able to move independently in near future, it is deemed
appropriate that a further sum of Rs.5 Lacs be awarded to the respondent
No.1 in the head of compensation for attendant. Thus, the appellant
Insurance Company is directed to pay this amount of Rs. 5 Lacs to the
respondent no. 1 over and above the amount already awarded by the claims
tribunal. This enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of application before the claims tribunal.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal of the insurance company is hereby
dismissed and the cross-objection to the above extent is partly allowed.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
N.R.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 25-08-2025
20:14:07
[ad_1]
Source link