High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} FA 3167 OF 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 943 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3167 OF 20211.Gangasagar Rajesh KamthekarAge: 36 yrs., Occu.: Housewife.2.Sneha d/o. Rajesh KamthekarAge: 15 years, Occu.: Education,Minor U/g. of Appellant No.1.3.Shreyash s/o Rajesh KamthekarAge: 10 yrs., Occu.: Education,Minor U/g. of Appellant No.1.4.Kamal s/o Vyankatrao KamthekarAge: 63 yrs., Occu.: Housewife.5.Vyankatrao s/o Namdeorao KamthekarAge: 71 yrs., Occu.: Pensioner,All R/o. Kamtha (KH.),Tq. & Dist.Nanded.….Appellant (Ori. Claimants)Versus1.Vishwanath s/o Ravi SontakkeAge: Major, Occu.: Business,(Owner of TIPPAR BearingRegistration No.MH-04 CP-6164)R/o. Bramhanwada, Near MatasahibGurudwara, Nanded. Tq. and Dist.Nanded.2.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.Through It’s Manager,Office at L-8, RIICO Industrial Area,Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan – 302022.Through It’s Sister Branch,Through It’s Manager,Office of Chetan Trade Center Office No.109-110, First Floor, Opposite SFS {2} FA 3167 OF 2021School, Akashwani Jalna Road,Aurangabad.…..Respondents …..Advocate for Appellants : Mr.Vaibhav B. DhageAdvocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. Shivsamb N. JanakwadeAdvocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Swapnil S. Rathi ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 12 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of insufficient compensation,instant appeal is by original claimants thereby challenging thejudgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-3 & Ex-Officio Member of MACT, Nanded, in Motor Accident Claim PetitionNo.497 of 2017. 2. Facts giving rise to claim petition are that deceased Rajesh(husband of appellant no.1) was proceeding on his two wheeler. Hewas given dash by vehicle owned by respondent no.1 and insured byrespondent no.2. While undergoing treatment, decease succumbedto the fatal injuries. Therefore, crime No.207 of 2017 was registeredagainst respondent no.1 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of theIndian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 134 (A)(B) of the Motor {3} FA 3167 OF 2021Vehicles Act. Case set up by claimants in accident claim petition was that,there was rash and negligence driving on the part of driver of theoffending vehicle owned respondent no.1, which was insured byrespondent no.2 and as such they sought claim against bothrespondents jointly and severely. On appreciating oral and documentary evidence, learnedTribunal vide its judgment and order dated 23-05-2019, partlyallowed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation,original claimants have preferred instant appeal.3.Heard both sides. It appears that the appellants/claimants areaggrieved by non-consideration of their proposed claim and failure toconsider grant of future prospects as per settled law and consortiumto each of the claimants, which according to learned counsel, theyare entitled to in view of recent law laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limitedv. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma GeneralInsurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others,(2018) 18 SCC 130.
Legal Reasoning
{4} FA 3167 OF 20214.Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 have supportedthe judgment, however, learned counsel for respondent no.2conceded that learned Tribunal had granted consortium only toappellant no.1, instead of granting to each of the claimants. 5.After going through the record and on hearing each of thesides, there does not appear to be serious challenge or disputeregarding accidental death of Rajesh while he was proceeding on histwo wheeler on account of dash given by vehicle owned byrespondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. The only groundfor challenge is non-consideration of future prospects and consortiumto each of the claimants. Such claim has also been not denied bylearned counsel by respondent no.2/Insurance Company. Therefore,on such limited ground, impugned order is visited and re-appreciated. 6.On doing so, it does emerge that in paragraph nos. 15 and 16,learned Tribunal has observed that in view of evidence of CW2Govind Nandkumar Bidwai at exh.54, per annum income of Rajesh isconsidered Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000 per month. In the light of {5} FA 3167 OF 2021evidence of CW2 Govind Nandkumar Bidwai and papers like IncomeTax Returns, above quantification cannot be faulted at. Evendeduction towards personal expenses has been considered and dealtby learned Tribunal in paragraph no.18. However, as pointed out,towards consortium, learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/-.Infact in view of Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and MagmaGeneral Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), each of the claimants i.e. childrenand parents also are entitled to receive amount under the head ofConsortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. As per the setllted law, theclaimants are also entitled for 10% increase in the consortiumamount for a span of every three years from the date of the judgmentof the learned Tribunal.7.Even from the impugned judgment, it is emerging that, learnedTribunal has not considered entitlement of the claimants for futureprospects. In the fitness of things, considering the proved incomeand age of the deceased at the time of accident, 25% of the existingincome needs to be awarded towards future prospects. Afterconsidering the amount towards future prospects and consortium toeach of the claimants, the details of the amount of compensation tobe paid to the claimants are as under : {6} FA 3167 OF 2021 Sr.No.Heads(Rs.)Amount (Rs.)1Annual Income (i.e. 25,000 p.m. x 12) = 3,00,000 2Add Future Prospects (25% of income)i.e. 75,000 = 3,00,000 + 75,0003,75,0003Less ¼ deduction towards personal expenses (3,75,000 – 93,750)2,81,2504Multiplier of 14 (2,81,250 x 14)39,37,5005Non-pecuniary Losses :Loss of consortium (40,000 x 5) = 2,00,000 Amount already considered by the Tribunaltowards consortium = 40,000. Therefore, additionof 10% increase for a span of every three years isonly on 1,60,000.i.e. 20% of 160,000 = 32,000 Loss of Estate = 15,000Funeral Expenses = 15,000 2,62,0006Medical and hospital bills 4,40,7367Total Compensation to be paid 46,40,2368Less – Compensation awarded by Tribunal 36,60,7369Total enhanced amount of compensation 9,79,5008.Therefore, after considering the amount of future prospectsand consortium, the claimants are entitled for enhancedcompensation of Rs.9,79,500/-. Accordingly, following order ispassed : ORDER (i)First Appeal is partly allowed. {7} FA 3167 OF 2021(ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 23-05-2019passed by the learned District Judge-3 and Ex-OfficioMember of MACT, Nanded, in M.A.C.P. No.497 of 2017 ismodified.(iii)Respondent no.2/Insurance Company to payenhanced compensation amount of Rs.9,79,500/- toappellants – claimants within 12 weeks from today alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date ofregistration of claim petition till its realization.(iv)Out of enhanced compensation amount ofRs.9,79,500/-, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- be paid toclaimant no.1 and Rs.1,50,000/- each be paid to claimantnos.4 and 5 by crossed account payee cheques in theirnames and remaining amount of Rs.4,54,500/- bedistributed equally amongst claimant nos.2 and 3 and theamount of claimant no.3 i.e. Rs.2,27,250/- shall be kept infixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized Bank till heattains majority.(v)Rest of the award of the learned Tribunal ismaintained. (vi)Modified award be prepared accordingly.(vii)Claimants to pay court fees on enhancedcompensation as per Rules. {8} FA 3167 OF 2021(viii)On deposit of the amount by respondent no.2/ Insurance Company, appellants – claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT