High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 937-FA-680-15.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2015New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Divisional Manager,Yeshowallabh Shopping Complex, DhuleThrough its authorized signatory,Mr. Vishwas s/o Bansi Gaikwad,Age 55 yrs, Occ. Service, Sr. Div. Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd.R/o Aurangabad… Appellant/ Orig. Resp. No.2Versus1.Pundlik Ratan PatilAge 51 yrs, Occ. Agri./Transport2.Sau. Vajaya w/o Pundlik PatilAge 44 yrs, Occ. House holdBoth R/o Dalwel, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon Orig. Claimants3.Sitaram s/o Ramsharan Yadav,Age 47 yrs, Occ. TransportR/o 128/B, GTA CompoundPurna Village, Tq. Bhivandi, Dist. Thane …Respondents/ Orig. Claimants & Resp.No.1...Mr. Dhananjay P. Deshpande, Advocate for AppellantMr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.DATE : 09th JULY, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT : 1.By this appeal appellant/Insurance Company challengesthe judgment and award dated 01/09/2009, passed by MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in M.A.C.P. No.629/2007.2.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being parents of GaneshPundlik Patil filed claim petition contending that on 29/08/2007SVH 2 937-FA-680-15.odtGanesh was driving motor cycle bearing No.MH-18-T-2421. Hisfriend Vivek was pillion rider. Ganesh was riding behind one truckbearing No. MH-04-CA-3879. Driver of the truck suddenly appliedbreaks because of which Ganesh dashed the truck. He sufferedhead injury in the accident and was taken to the hospital, where heexpired after four to five hours. It is contended that at the time ofaccident deceased was 20 years old and he was studying in 12thstandard. He was also doing agricultural work and claimants weredependent on him. They, therefore, claimed compensation ofRs.4,50,000/-. After recording evidence and hearing the parties,Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awardedcompensation of Rs.2,93,000/-, along with simple future interest @7.5% per annum. This appeal challenges quantum of compensationawarded by the Tribunal. 3.Heard learned advocate for appellant and learnedadvocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.4.Insurance Company has raised various grounds whileassailing the impugned judgment and award. Main ground ofchallenge was that deceased himself was rash and negligent. Hedashed the truck from behind and criminal case was also lodgedagainst deceased for rash and negligent driving. Hence, claimantsare not entitled for compensation. In view of decision of the ApexCourt in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. SunilKumar and Another, [(2019) 12 SCC 398], the said ground is notSVH 3 937-FA-680-15.odtavailable to Insurance Company, hence, it was not pressed intoservice at the time of hearing. Learned advocate for InsuranceCompany assailed the impugned judgment and award contendingthat claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988. As per this provision 2nd Schedule of Section163-A will have to be followed. By relying on 2nd Schedule underSection 163-A, he submits that non-earning person’s notionalincome has to be taken @ Rs.15,000/- per annum, whereas inpresent case it is taken @ Rs.2,400/- per month. Further submissionis that, in view of decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and Others, [AIR2009 SC 3104], 50% deduction is to be made from the bachelor’sincome, wherein in the case in hand 1/3rd amount is deducted,which is not proper. The quantum of compensation is, therefore,impugned by learned advocate for Insurance Company.5.Learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants,on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and award.He submits that claimants have categorically stated in the Tribunalthat deceased was doing agricultural work and was earningRs.3,000/- per month. Tribunal is, therefore, right in taking notionalincome of deceased @ Rs.2,400/- per month. He submits that nocompensation is awarded by Tribunal under the head ‘futureprospects’. If future prospects are taken into consideration, theTribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.2,93,000/-.SVH
Legal Reasoning
4 937-FA-680-15.odt6.Heard learned advocate for appellant/InsuranceCompany and learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants at length. Perused the record.7.In Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), it is held that, “theprinciples relating to determination of liability and quantum ofcompensation are different for claims made under Section 163-A ofMotor Vehicles Act and claims under Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act. Application seeking compensation under Section 163 Aof the Act needs to be considered and decided in terms ofcompensation to be assessed on the basis of structured formulagiven in 2nd Schedule of the Act. It is further held that whiledetermining compensation age of deceased and not the claimants,is to be considered for the purpose of selecting multiplier”.8.Considering the above ratio structured formula givenunder Section 163-A needs to be followed as the claim petition fieldby claimants is under Section 163-A. Therefore, notional annualincome of deceased will have to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum.In terms of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) the Tribunal has erred inapplying multiplier of 15 by considering age of claimants.Considering the age of deceased, multiplier of 18 ought to havebeen applied by the Tribunal. Tribunal has also not awardedcompensation under the head ‘future prospects’.9.In the case in hand Tribunal has accepted the contentionof claimants that deceased was also doing agricultural work and bySVH 5 937-FA-680-15.odtholding that minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs.80/- perday, Tribunal has calculated notional income of deceased @Rs.2,400/- per month. Tribunal has rightly held notional income onthe basis of material placed before it. In that view of the matter,clause 6(a) of the 2nd Schedule would not be applicable to the factsof the present case.10.While awarding compensation the Tribunal has notawarded compensation under the head ‘future prospects’ as per thedecision in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and National InsuranceCompany Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC5157], which would be 40% of the notional income i.e. Rs.15,000 x40% = Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, notional income would come toRs.15,000 + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.21,000/-. By deducting 1/3rd amounttowards personal expenses of deceased, his annual notional incomewould be assessed at Rs.14,000/- and after applying multiplier of 18the compensation amount comes to Rs.2,52,000/-. Tribunal hasfurther not awarded any compensation towards non-pecuniarylosses. Claimants are, in fact, entitled for loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-, loss of estate atRs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the Tribunalought to have assessed just and fair compensation at Rs.2,52,000 +Rs.80,000 (loss of consortium) + Rs.15,000/- (loss of estate) +Rs.15,000/- (funeral expenses) = Rs.3,62,000/-. However, theTribunal as awarded compensation of Rs.2,93,000/-.SVH 6 937-FA-680-15.odt11.In this view of the matter, quantum of compensationawarded by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. Appellanthas failed to make out case to interfere in the impugned judgmentand award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appeal beingdevoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)SVH