High Court
Legal Reasoning
FA 502/2003 & Ors.1IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 20031.Laxmibai w/o. Nagnath Navtake,Age 28 yrs., Occu. Household,2.Saurabh s/o. Nagnath Navtake,Age 9 months, Minor U/g. of natural mother i.e. claimant No.1.3.Sow. Chandrakala w/o. MandolappaNavtake, Age 58 yrs., Occu. Nil,4.Mandolappa s/o. Nagnathappa Navtake(Deleted as per order dated 4.10.2022)All R/o. Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,Dist. Latur.....Appellants (Claimants)Versus1.Sangmeshwar s/o. Rameshappa These,Age 30 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Kavalram Galli, Ausa, Dist. Latur.2.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Chandra Nagar, Latur.Cover Note No. 572471 from 20.5.98 to 19.5.99.....RespondentsMr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. M.M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent No. 2.WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 503 OF 20031.Sima w/o. Vijaykumar Valsange,(Deleted as per order dated 4.10.2022)2.Vishal s/o. Vijaykumar Valsange,Age 16 yrs, Minor,3.Vinayak s/o. Vijaykumar Valsange,Age 12 yrs, Minor, FA 502/2003 & Ors.24.Vishakha d/o. Vijaykumar Calsange,Age 8 yrs, Minor,Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are minors and u/g. of their natural motherClaimant No. 1 Sima Vijaykumar Galli, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, District Latur.....Appellants (Claimants)Versus1.Sangmeshwar s/o. Rameshappa These,Age 30 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Kavalram Galli, Ausa, Dist. Latur.2.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Chandra Nagar, Latur.Insurance Cover Note No. 572471 from 25.5.98 to 19.5.99.....RespondentsMr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2003Jagdish s/o. Devidasrao Patil,Age 39 yrs., Occu. Government Service,R/o. 3/3, Badmen’s Quarters, Walkeshwar,Mumbai, now R/o. At and post Ujani,Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.....Appellants (Claimants)Versus1.Sangmeshwar s/o. Sureshappa These,Age 30 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Kavalram Galli, Ausa, Dist. Latur.2.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Chandra Nagar, Latur.(Cover Note No. 572471 from 20.5.1998 to 19.5.1999.)....RespondentsMr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.WITH FA 502/2003 & Ors.3FIRST APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2003Chandrashekhar s/o. NagnathappaKhanapure, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Govt.Service, R/o. Ambajogai Road, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur.....Appellants (Claimants)Versus1.Sangmeshwar s/o. Sureshappa These,Age 30 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Kavalram Galli, Ausa, Dist. Latur.2.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Chandra Nagar, Latur.(Insurance Cover Note No. 572471Valid from 20.5.98 to 19.5.99.....RespondentsMr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 20031.Rajeshwari w/o. Dhananjay Utage,Age 35 yrs., Occu. H.H.,2.Sweta d/o. Dhananjay Utage,Age 13 yrs., Minor,3.Rahul s/o Dhananjay Utage,Age 9 yrs, Minor,4.Sanchita d/o. Dhananjay Utage,Age 9 yrs., Minor,Minors Sr.Nos. 2 to 4 are underguardianship of claimant No. 1All R/o. Utage-Galli, Ausa, Tq. AusaDistrict Latur.....Appellants (Claimants)Versus1.Sangmeshwar s/o. Sureshappa These,Age 30 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Kavalram Galli, Ausa, Dist. Latur. FA 502/2003 & Ors.42.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Chandra Nagar, Latur.Insurance Cover Note No. 572471 from 20.5.1998 to 19.5.1999.....RespondentsMr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATED : 14/08/2024JUDGMENT : 1)The first appeals are filed by the original claimants challenging thecommon judgment and order passed by the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Latur (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT, Latur’) dated23.7.2002 in MACP Nos. 185, 191, 223, 307 and 323 of 1999 forenhancement of compensation amount. 2)First Appeals Nos. 502, 503 and 509 are in respect of the deathclaims and First Appeal Nos. 504 and 508 are in respect of injury claims.The appeals arise out of the same accident. 3)The facts leading to the institution of the appeals are summarized asunder :-In first appeal No. 502/2003 (arising out of MACP No. 185/1999),appellants/Claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased NagnathNavtake. At the time of accident the deceased was of 32 years old. In Firstappeal No. 503/2023 (arising out of MACP No. 191/1999),appellants/claimants are legal heirs of deceased Vijaykukar Valsange and inFirst Appeal No. 509/2003 (arising out of MACP No. 307/1999), FA 502/2003 & Ors.5appellants/claimants are legal heirs of deceased Dhananjay Utge. It is thecase of the claimants that deceased were travelling in Tata Suma Jeepbearing No. MH-24/A7460 along with other injured claimants in First AppealNo. 504/2004 (arising out of MACP No. 223/1999) and First Appeal No.508/2003 (arising out of MACP No. 323/1999) from Mumbai to Ausa/Latur.When the said jeep reached Pandherwadi, near Shrikrishna Dhaba, the jeepcollied with a tanker and the above mentioned occupants of jeep died in thesaid accident. The other claimants have sustained injuries in the saidaccident. The insurance claim in all claim petitions is filed against the ownerand insurance company of the jeep.4)In death claims, the MACT, Latur held that driver of the jeep anddriver of the tanker were equally responsible for the accident and hasgranted compensation of Rs.1,82,500/- in MACP Nos. 185/1999 and191/1999 and amount of Rs.2,42,000/- in MACP No. 307/1999 withinterest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petitions till realisation ofthe full amount to the claimants. Since the driver of the jeep was heldequally responsible, the jeep owner and it’s Insurance Company were madeliable to pay the above compensation to the extent of their negligence i.e.at the rate of 50% of total compensation determined.5)In injury claims i.e. MACP No. 223/1999 and 323/1999 the MACTLatur has granted 50% of the lump-sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,22,536/-, respectively, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the dateof the petition till realisation of full amount to the claimants. The Tribunalhas held that the injured claimant Chandrashekhar in MACP No. 323/1999has only sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% due to injuries
Legal Reasoning
FA 502/2003 & Ors.6sustained to him in the accident. In respect of claimant Jagdish in MACP No.223/1999, the Tribunal has held that the claimant has not becomepermanently disabled due to the injuries sustained to him, but he sustainedmultiple injuries in the accident. 6)The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this isthe case of composite negligence and the deceased were occupants of thejeep. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal haswrongly casts liability on respondent/Insurance Company only to the extentof 50% and the entire claim can be fasten upon the Insurance Company ofthe jeep being the joint tort feasor. The learned counsel relies upon thejudgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2067/2023 withconnected matters dated 1.3.2024 (Miss Arpita d/o. Tukaram Panchal Vs.Ramchandra s/o. Shrimantra Dhoble), whereby relying upon the judgmentof Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India AssuranceCo. Ltd. And Ors., reported in 1959 SCC 273, this Court has held that in thecase of composite negligence, claimants are entitled to sue both or any oneof the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire amount of compensationas liability from one of the joint tort feasors as the liability is joint andseveral. In case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensationbetween two tort feasors vis-a-vis the claimants is not permissible and theclaimant can recover whole damages from any of them. 7)The learned counsel has also taken me through para 47 of theimpugned judgment and submits that in MACP No. 185/1999 thecomputation made is erroneous by the Tribunal as multiplier of 15 is applied FA 502/2003 & Ors.7instead of 16 to the annual income of the deceased. He further submits thatthe claimants have been granted only Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expensesof which 50% is further deducted towards the liability of the tanker owner. 8)The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company havestrongly opposed the appeals filed for enhancement of compensation.9)In First Appeal No. 502/2003, having considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing forthe Insurance Company, it is seen that the Tribunal has considered theincome of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month and deducted 1/3rdamount towards personal expenses and had applied multiplier of 15 and haddirected the respondents to pay the compensation amount to the extent ofliability of 50% only which is not permissible in law in view of the judgmentin the case of Khenyei cited supra. Considering the age of the deceased as32 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought to have appliedmultiplier of 16. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount towardspersonal expenses. For the funeral expenses, the Tribunal ought to havegranted amount of Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-.Towards consortium the Tribunal ought to have granted an amount ofRs.40,000/- (total Rs. 40000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-) to each claimant.Thus, by deducting the amount already paid to the claimants, the claimantsare entitled to get compensation as follows :-ParticularsAmountMonthly income of the deceasedRs.3000/-1/4th towards personal deductionsRs. 750/- FA 502/2003 & Ors.8TotalRs.2250/-Rs. 2250/- x 12 (months) x 16 (multiplier asdeceased was 41 years old at the time ofaccident)Rs.4,32,000/-Consortium (Rs.40000/- x 4 claimants)Rs.1,60,000/-Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-Funeral expensesRs.15,000/-Total CompensationRs.6,22,000/-Amount awarded by MACT needs to bedeductedRs.1,82,500/-Compensation payable after deductionRs.4,39,500/- The claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% from thedate of claim petition till the realization of the entire amount of theadditional payable compensation. Thus, the First Appeal No. 502/2003 isallowed and disposed of accordingly. 10)In First Appeal No. 503/2003, having considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing forthe Insurance Company, it is seen that the Tribunal has considered theincome of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month and deducted 1/3rdamount towards personal expenses and had applied multiplier of 15 and haddirected the respondents to pay to the extent of 50% liability only which isnot permissible in view of the judgment in the case of Khenyei cited supra.Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the Tribunalhas rightly applied multiplier of 15. The Tribunal ought to have deducted1/4th amount towards personal expenses. For the funeral expenses, theTribunal ought to have granted amount of Rs.15,000/- and towards loss ofestate Rs. 15,000/-. Towards consortium the Tribunal ought to have grantedan amount of Rs.40,000/- (total Rs. 40000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-) to each FA 502/2003 & Ors.9claimant. Thus, by deducting the amount already paid, the claimants areentitled to get compensation as follows :-ParticularsAmountMonthly income of the deceasedRs.3000/-1/4th towards personal deductionsRs.750/-TotalRs.2250/-Rs. 2250/- x 12 (months) x 15 (multiplier asdeceased was 41 years old at the time ofaccident)Rs.4,05,000/-Consortium (Rs.40000/- x 4 claimants)Rs. 1,60,000/-Loss of EstateRs. 15,000/-Funeral expensesRs. 15,000/-Total CompensationRs.5,95,000/-Amount awarded by MACT needs to bedeductedRs.1,82,500/-Compensation payable after deductionRs.4,12,500/- The claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% from thedate of claim petition till the realization of the entire amount of theadditional payable compensation. Thus, the First Appeal No. 503/2003 isallowed and disposed of accordingly. 11)The learned counsel submits that appellant No. 1 Sima died and herlegal heirs are already on record and he has submitted pursis to that effect.In view of the above, share of deceased appellant No. 1 is to be equallydistributed between appellant Nos. 2 to 4. 12)In First Appeal No. 509/2003, having considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing forthe Insurance Company, it is seen that the Tribunal has considered the FA 502/2003 & Ors.10income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month and deducted 1/3rdamount towards personal expenses and had applied multiplier of 15 and haddirected the respondents to pay the amount jointly and severally to theextent of 50% liability only which is not permissible in view of the judgmentin the case of Khenyei cited supra. Considering the age of the deceased as35 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplierof 15. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount towards personalexpenses. For the funeral expenses, the Tribunal ought to have grantedamount of Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-. Towardsconsortium the Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of Rs.40,000/-(total Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-) to each claimant. Thus, bydeducting the amount already paid, the claimants are entitled to getcompensation as follows :-ParticularsAmountMonthly income of the deceasedRs.4000/-1/4th towards personal deductionsRs.1000/-TotalRs.3000/-Rs.3000 /- x 12 (months) x 15 (multiplier asdeceased was 41 years old at the time ofaccident)Rs.5,40,000/-Consortium (Rs.40000/- x 4 claimants)Rs. 1,60,000/-Loss of EstateRs. 15,000/-Funeral expensesRs. 15,000/-Total CompensationRs. 7,30,000/-Amount awarded by MACT needs to bedeductedRs.2,42,500/-Compensation payable after deductionRs.4,87,500/- The claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% on theenhanced amount from the date of claim petition till the realization of the FA 502/2003 & Ors.11entire amount. Thus, the First Appeal No. 509/2003 is allowed and disposedof accordingly. 13)First Appeal No. 504/2003 is in respect of injury claim. On perusal ofthe impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimant – Jagdishhas not produced any disability certificate and no evidence is there beforethe Tribunal in terms of the nature of disability suffered and loss on thataccount. But the Tribunal agree with the fact that the claimant has provedthat he sustained multiple injuries in the accident. But, the Tribunal hasawarded only 50% of the determined compensation on account ofcontributory negligence of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Court finds thatcompensation ought to have been granted in entirity as the joint tort feasoris liable jointly and severally. So this Court modifies compensation as Rs.3,00,000/-. Amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is already paid to the claimant in thiscase as per the impugned judgment and award. Thus, the claimant isentitled to receive additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at therate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the realization of the entireamount. Thus, the First Appeal No. 504/2003 is allowed and disposed ofaccordingly. 14)First Appeal No. 508/2003 is in respect of injury claim. On perusal ofthe impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimant –Chandrashekhar Khanapure has produced disability certificate issued by oneDr. Jadhav wherein he stated that there was fracture to scapular spine rightand restricted movements of right shoulder and hence, he observed thatclaimant Chandrashekhar sustained permanent disability to the extent of FA 502/2003 & Ors.1215%. 15)Although the above certificate is produced, the claimant was workingin Government service and continued to work as government servant. Hehas not lead any evidence to show that he suffered any loss. The Tribunalheld that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/-for the loss of leave, pains, agony and disability sustained to him due to theinjuries. The claimant has filed medical bills for an amount of Rs. 45,072/-.So the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation ofRs. 2,45,072/- from the respondents. But, as the liability of the respondentNos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation has been fixed to the extent of 50%,the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,22,536/- from the respondents. It is not permissible to grant 50% ofcompensation as this is a case of composite negligence. In view of theabove, this Court holds that the claimant is entitled to receive compensationof Rs.2,45,072/-. Amount of Rs. 1,22,536/- is already paid to the claimantin this case as per the impugned judgment and award. Thus, the claimant isentitled to receive additional compensation of Rs. 1,22,536/- due to theinjuries with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition tillthe realization of the entire amount. Thus, the First Appeal No. 508/2003 isallowed and disposed of accordingly. 16)In view of the discussion made above, the first appeals are disposedof accordingly. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER J.]SSC/