High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD202 FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2007The Depot Manager,Maharashtra State Road TransportCorporation, Jalgaon office,Jalgaon....Appellant(Original Respondent)VERSUS1.Sunita w/o Dilip Sonawane,Age 30 years, Occ. Household,2.Pooja d/o Dilip Sonawane,Age 13 years, Occ.Nil,3.Rahul s/o Dilip Sonawane,Age 11 years, Occ.Nil,4.Swapnil s/o Dilip Sonawane,Age 7 years, Occ. Nil,(Respondents No.2 to 4 are minors,therefore represented by heir naturalguardian mother i.e. respondent No.1)All R/o Asoda, Taluka Jlagoan,District Jalgaon.(Original Petitioners)5.Premsing s/o Manga Sonawane,Age 47 years, Occ. S. T. Driver,R/o and C/o S. T. Depot, JalgaonDistrict Jalgaon. (Appeal Dismissed as per Court’s order dated 04/09/2015).6.Sunil s/o Vishnu Narkhade,Age 35 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,7.Shantaram s/o Narayan Mali,Age 37 years, occ. Rickshaw Owner,Respondents No.6 and 7. R/o Asoda, Taluka and Dist. Jalgaon.8.Ramesh s/o Tukaram Chaudhari,Age years, Occ. Rickshaw Owner,R/o Lohar Lane, Varangaon,Taluka Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.Page 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
202 FA 985-20079.The Divisional Manager,New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Dadhiwala Bunglow, JalgaonDistrict Jalgaon.10.Smt. Kashabai Pandit Sonawane,Age 52 years, occ.Service,R/o Manmad, Dist. Nasik....Respondents...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. K. GoyankaAdvocate for Respondent No.9 : Mr. Dhananjay DeshpandeAdvocate for Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. G. V. Wani...WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5532 OF 2006 IN FA/985/2007…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,through its Div. Manager, MandoreMarket Behind Dahiwala Bunglow,Jalgaon Through its authorizedSignatory, Mr. Sanjiv s/o RamraoGaisamudre, Age 50 years, Occ.Service, Sr. Div. Manager, NewIndia Assurance Co. Ltd., R/oAurangabad....Appellant(Original Resp.No.5)VERSUS1.Sharad Shantaram Patil,Age 39 years, Occ. Service,R/o Asoda, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon.(Orig.Claimant)2.Premsing Manga Sonawane,Age 51 years, Occ.Service,S.T.Depot, Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon.Page 2 of 8 202 FA 985-20073.The Divisional Controller,MSRTC Jalgaon, New Bus StandPremises, Zilla Peth Jalgaon.4.Sunil Vishnu Narkhede,Age 41 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,R/o Asoda, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon.5.Ramesh Tukaram Chaudhari,Age 45 years, Occ. Business,R/o Lohar Galli, Varangaon,Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon....Respondents(Orig.Claimant and Resp.No.1 to 4)...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay DeshpandeAdvocate for Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. G. V. Wani... WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3433 OF 2011 IN FA/341/2011….CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated : September 5, 2024.ORAL JUDGMENT :-1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2.The appellant, MSRTC, challenges the order passed by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.590/199, dated 08/08/2005, whichgranted compensation to the claimants, dependents of the deceased,who was traveling in the auto-rickshaw that met with an accidentinvolving an MSRTC bus.Page 3 of 8 202 FA 985-20073.The brief facts of the case are as follows :-On 10/09/1998, Dilip Pandit Sonawane was traveling in auto-rickshaw from Jalgaon to Asoda. At around 6:00 p.m., near Khari Doha,the auto-rickshaw collided with MSRTC bus bearing No. MH-20/A-4697coming from the opposite direction. The auto-rickshaw, bearing No. MH-19/8141, in which Dilip Sonawane was traveling, was involved in thecollision, resulting in his death at the spot. The claimants, being thelegal heirs and dependents of late Dilip Sonawane, filed a claim petitionagainst MSRTC, the auto-rickshaw owner, and its insurer, seekingcompensation for loss of dependency.4.After considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the MSRTCbus driver was solely negligent in causing the accident and directedMSRTC to pay the entire compensation amounting of Rs.3,60,788/- tothe dependents. The Tribunal based its calculation considering thedeceased's monthly income of Rs. 2,583/- and his age at the time ofaccident being 32 years.5.Challenging this order, the learned Counsel for the MSRTCcontends that the case involved contributory negligence and that boththe auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer should bear a portion of thePage 4 of 8 202 FA 985-2007liability. The learned counsel for MSRTC argued that the auto-rickshawwas also partially responsible for the accident. The learned counsel forMSRTC referred to the spot panchanama, the complaint filed byoccupant of the rickshaw, and the testimony of the rickshaw driver. Hesubmits that the rickshaw driver was an interested witness who shiftedthe entire blame on to the driver of the MSRTC bus. The spotpanchanama and the complaint indicated that the auto-rickshaw wasalso partially responsible, and thus the compensation should have beenapportioned between the owners of both vehicles.6.After reviewing the original record, with the assistance of learnedcounsel Mr. M. K. Goyanka for appellant/ MSRTC and learned Counsel Mr.D. P. Deshpande for respondent No.9/ Insurance Company, it is to benoted that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has observed thatthe road where the accident occurred was 18 feet wide, with 11 feetoccupied by the bus. The auto-rickshaw on impact was taken of theroad and went on to the mud lane. It was also established that the bushad only one functioning headlight on the left side. The accidentoccurred in the evening during rain, reducing visibility. While bothdrivers were driving vehicles in high speed, the totality of thecircumstances and the complaint filed by the rickshaw occupant, alongwith the chargesheet filed against the drivers of both the vehicles,Page 5 of 8 202 FA 985-2007suggest that the auto-rickshaw was 25% responsible for the accident,and MSRTC was 75% responsible. Therefore, the apportionment shouldbe 75% to MSRTC and 25% to the auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer.7.Regarding the compensation awarded, although the Tribunalcomputed it based on the deceased’s monthly income of Rs. 2,583/-, itappears that the further compensation under various heads was notcorrectly calculated as per ratio laid down in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. The Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Jitendra Trivedi & Ors. vs. KasamDaud Kumbhar & Ors. [(2015) 4 SCC 237] has held thatcompensation must be just, even if no cross-objections or appeals arefiled by the claimants, the same should be granted by the High Court. 8.After applying the appropriate multiplier and adding conventionalheads as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General InsuranceCo. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the revisedcompensation amount is Rs.4,27,356/- with interest at 7% per annumfrom the date of filing the claim petition.9.Accordingly, the claimants, who were awarded Rs.3,60,788/- bythe Tribunal, are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,27,356/-Page 6 of 8 202 FA 985-2007with 7% interest from the date of filing the claim. The computation is asfollows :ParticularsAmountMonthly income of the deceasedRs. 2,583/-50% future prospects (as per Sarla Verma)Rs. 1,292/-TotalRs. 3,875/-1/4th deduction for personal expensesRs. 968/-Total (after deductions)Rs. 2,907/-Rs. 2,907 x 12 (months) x 16 (multiplier)Rs. 5,58,144/-Consortium (Rs. 40,000 x 5 claimants)Rs. 2,00,000/-Loss of estateRs. 15,000/-Funeral expensesRs. 15,000/-Total compensationRs. 7,88,144/-Granted by the TribunalRs. 3,60,788/-Enhanced compensationRs. 4,27,356/-10.In light of the above, the apportionment as made in First AppealNo.985/2007 would also apply to First Appeal No.341/2011. First AppealNo.341/2011 relates to injury claim and the apportionment ofcompensation would be 75% by MSRTC and 25% jointly and severally byauto-rickshaw driver/ respondent No.4, owner/ respondent No.5 andinsurance of auto-rickshaw / petitioner. The enhanced amount isdirected to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of thisjudgment before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The amountalready deposited in this Court, if any, shall be transferred to the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim PetitionsPage 7 of 8
Decision
202 FA 985-2007No.590/1999 and No.217/2000 for disbursement as per the law.Accordingly, the FA/985/2007 is disposed of in above terms andFA/341/2011 stands partly allowed with modification as above. Pendingapplications stand disposed of.( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )vj gawade/-.Page 8 of 8