High Court
Facts
(1) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.372 OF 2025Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.Through Branch ManagerReliance General Insurance Company Ltd.Registered office: Walchand Hirachand MargBallard Estate, Mumbai.Insurer of Truck no.MH-25-U-2578Validity 10.11.2017 to 09.11.2018Policy no.140721723340011079Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Through it’s Branch Manager2nd Floor, ABC Complex, C-9 & C-10Adalat Road, Radha Mohan Colony,Khokadpura, Aurangabad..Appellant(Orig. Res.no.2)Versus1.Kavita w/o Vinayak KawadeAge - 45 years Occ. - Household2.Bhairu s/o Vinayak KawadeAge - 24 years Occ. - EducationBoth R/o Sanja road, OsmanabadTq. & Dist. Osmanabad...Orig. Claimants3.Mahesh s/o Gulab BachateAge - Major Occ. - BusinessR/o. S.T. Colony OmergaDist. Osmanabad.Owner of Truck no.MH-25-U-25784.Nagesh s/o Shrishail IndeAge - Major Occ. - BusinessR/o. Tandulwadi Tq. South SolapurDist. Solapur...Respondents(Res. no.1 to 2 orig. claimants Res.No.3 & 4 is orig Res.no.1 & 3)...Mr. Aniruddha S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr. Sushant Choudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for Respondent No.3.…WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4171 OF 2025 IN FA/372/2025 (2) 39-ca-4171-2025.odt CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2025.P.C.:- 1.Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties.2.The appellant/original respondent no.2-Insurance Companyimpugns judgment and award dated 15.07.2024 passed by MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in M.A.C.P. No.94/2018.(Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original status for thesake of convenience and brevity).3.The respondent nos.1 and 2/original claimants institutedM.A.C.P. No.94/2018 raising claim for compensation ofRs.20,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act towardsaccidental death of late Shantaram Vinayak Kawade. It iscontention of claimants that on 12.12.2017, while late Shantaramwas proceeding by Jeep, offending Truck gave dash to Jeep. Inresult, Shantaram suffered fatal injuries. According to claimants,he was aged about 20 years and dealing in vegetable business andearning Rs.12,000/- per month.4.The claim was contested on behalf of respondent/InsuranceCompany by raising multiple defence.5.The Tribunal after considering evidence on record concludedthat in absence of income proof, notional income of deceased, whichis quantified @ Rs.8000/- per month has to be taken into account.
Legal Reasoning
(5) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtnot be disturbed. The Tribunal rightly granted compensationtowards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium,which need not be disturbed.10.It appears from observations of Tribunal that relying uponjudgment of this Court in case of Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavaliand Ors. Vs. MSRTC Swargate Pune in First Appeal No.1579of 2006 dated 21.09.2023, Tribunal declined to grant interest oncompensation towards future prospects.11.At this stage it is worthwhile to mention that under Section168 of Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal is under obligation to fix justcompensation. It is well settled that multiplier method is soundand well accepted worldwide for fixing just compensation. It hastwo components, one is multiplicand and second is multiplier. Themultiplier has to be determined on the basis of age of victim,whereas multiplicand has to be determined on the basis of hisactual or notional income. Irrespective of life expectancy,maximum multiplier accepted for application by Indian Courts is18 for age group of 21 to 25. It is reduced on advancement of ageby every five years. For fixing appropriate multiplicand, income ofdeceased at the time of his death is relevant. However, in case ofdeath at young age, future prospects become relevantconsideration. The young man at the entry in service may havelimited perks from his employer, however, gradually it gets (6) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtincreased. Even young man with expansion of his family exertsmore to add his income. The addition of future prospects isapplicable in similar manner even for self-employed or professionalor businessman.12.The determination of multiplicand would be combination ofcurrent income plus future prospects. Since multiplier methodbalances growing age and provides maximum multiplier foryoungest age which gets reduced with advancement of age, thebalance is sought to be achieved by adding appropriate amounttowards future prospects. In fact, determination of compensationitself is exercised to find out future loss to victim or his dependent.Addition of amount towards future prospects will have to beconsidered as integrated part of multiplicand and cannot beseparated from actual income of victim. In this background, thereis no rational behind denying interest on the amount added by wayof future prospects. The careful analysis of evolution of multipliermethod would show that multiplicand has to be decided and lastlyit is stabilized with addition of particular percentage based on agegroup of victim towards future prospects in actual income of victim.The two judgments of this Court, by giving reference to expositionof law by Supreme Court of India taken view that amount added byway of future prospects would also attract award of interest. Atthis stage, reference can be given to the judgments of this Court in (7) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtcases of Kiran wd/o Bhaskar Shinganjude and Ors. Vs.Saleem Khan s/o. Chhajua Khan (First Appeal No.315 of2020 dated 12.02.2025) and M/s. IFFCO-TOKIA GeneralInsurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suvarna w/o. Rajbhau Ghodke(First Appeal No.401 of 2014 dated 01.10.2025).13.I am in full agreement with view expressed in both aforesaidjudgments. In that view of the matter, claimants are certainlyentitled for interest on entire compensation amount includingadded amount towards future prospects. In that view of thematter, compensation needs to be worked out as shown in followingtable. Sr.No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1Annual Income (Rs.8000 x 12)Rs.96,000/-2Addition of 40% towards future prospects(Rs.96,000/- + Rs.38,400/-) =Rs.1,34,400/-3One half deduction towards personal andliving expenses. Rs.1,34,400 / 2 = Rs.67,200/-Rs.67,200/-4Apply multiplier of ‘18’ (Rs.67,200 x 18)Rs.12,09,600/-5Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium tomotherRs.48,400/-6Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expensesRs.18,150/-7Rs.18,150 /- towards loss of estateRs.18,150/-TOTALRs.12,94,300/-14.In that view of the matter, following order is passed: -ORDERi.First Appeal is partly allowed.
Arguments
(3) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtThe Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal and livingexpenses and finally passed award for compensation ofRs.16,97,572/- against respondent nos.1 to 3.6.Mr. Usmanpurkar, learned Advocate appearing forappellants submits that Tribunal passed award dehors settledposition as per judgment of Supreme Court of India in cases ofNational Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &Ors.1 and Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi TransportCorporation and Ors.2. He submits that deceased was bachelor.The claimant no.1 i.e. mother can only be said to be dependent.Therefore, Tribunal ought to have applied deduction of one halftowards personal and living expenses. However, it is erroneouslyapplied as 1/3rd. He also submits that this is a case of compositenegligence of two vehicle drivers involved in accident. Theclaimants have merely raised compensation against owner, driverand insurer of Truck and, therefore, claim is bad for non-joinder ofnecessary parties. He would further submit that in absence ofincome proof and considering age of deceased his notional incomecould not have been considered more than Rs.6000/- per month.However, Tribunal exponentially considered it @ Rs.8000/- andpassed excessive and exorbitant award.1(2017) 16 SCC 680.2AIR 2009 SC 3104. (4) 39-ca-4171-2025.odt7.Per contra, learned Advocate appearing forrespondents/claimants supports award. He contends that deceasedwas bread earner of family. His mother and brother weredependent on him. In his endeavour to maintain family, he wasdealing in vegetable business. Therefore, quantification of hisearning @ Rs.8000/- per month cannot be objected. He wouldfurther submit that since there are two claimants, 1/3rd deductiontowards personal and living expenses is also justified.8.Considering submissions advanced, it can be observed thatdeceased was bachelor. In such case, normally only parents areconsidered as dependents. In present case, claimant no.1 is motherof deceased. The claimant no.2 is brother. His age is shown as 24years. In that view of matter, only claimant no.1 has to beconsidered as dependent. In this factual background, it wasnecessary to deduct one half of his earning towards personal andliving expenses considering dependency of claimant no.1 forbalance of amount. Therefore, deduction applied by Tribunal tothat extent needs to be modified.9.Although Mr. Usmanpurkar, learned Advocate heavilyobjects for fixing notional income of deceased @ Rs.8000/- permonth, in facts of present case when deceased was bread earner forhis mother in absence of father and he was young man of 20 yearsof age, quantification of his earning @ Rs.8000/- per month need
Decision
(8) 39-ca-4171-2025.odtii.The judgment and award dated 15.07.2024 passed by MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in M.A.C.P. No.94/2018 ismodified.iii.The appellant/original respondent no.2, respondent nos.3 and4 do pay jointly and severally amount of Rs.12,94,300/- (Rs. TwelveLakhs Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred only) with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realizationof amount to respondent no.1/original claimant no.1 (inclusive ofamount of 'no fault liability').iv.Rest of terms of award as passed by Tribunal shall mutatismutandis be applied to the modified award.v.The respondent no.1/original claimant no.1 is permitted towithdraw aforesaid awarded amount.vi.Balance of the amount deposited be refunded toAppellant/Insurance Company.vii.In view of above observations, Civil Application does notsurvive and stands disposed of accordingly.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/April-2025