High Court · 2025
Facts
1109-22-FA.odt {1}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 20221. Shantabai Wd/o. Maroti Dhotre, Age: 40 years, Occu.: Household,2. Ramdas S/o. Maroti Dhotre, Age: 23 years, Occu.: Education3. Rohidas S/o. Maroti Dhote, Age: 20 years, Occu. : Education4. Sonubai W/o. Digambar Dhotre, (Died)… Appellants(Orig. Claimants)Versus1. Balvindarsingh S/o. Jagatsingh Sandhu, Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Plot No.49, Nandigram Society, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.2. United India Insurance Com. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Off/At Guru Complex, G.G. Road, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded .… Respondents (Orig. Respondents)......Mr. Vaibhav B. Dhage, Advocate for AppellantsMr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2......CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON: 11 AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 19 AUGUST 2025 1109-22-FA.odt {2}JUDGMENT :-1.The original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 300 of 2016, decided bythe Member, M.A.C.P., Nanded, are aggrieved by the meagre quantumof compensation awarded, as well as the non-consideration of theshares of original claimants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the sons of the deceasedMarotiFACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:2.On 29.03.2016, deceased Maroti was proceeding on hismotorcycle bearing No.MH-17-X4633 and his brother Masu was thepillion rider. There was a diversion on the road near Maltekdi Bridge,Nanded. When the motorcycle was in the vicinity of Dr. AmbedkarBhawan, a truck bearing registration No. MH-26-AD-1797, comingfrom the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and athigh speed, gave dash to the motorcycle, causing fatal injuries toMaroti. Crime was registered against the truck driver vide CrimeNo.62 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A,337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134, 177 of Motor VehiclesAct.3.The present appellants/original claimants filed Claim PetitionNo. 300 of 2016, contending that the accident occurred due to therash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It is further contended
Legal Reasoning
1109-22-FA.odt {5}and award, being legally justified, should not be interfered with.8.Heard both the sides. Perused the papers and impugnedjudgment and award.9.It is seen that in the claim petition there is no dispute regardingthe fact that the deceased, Maroti, met with accidental death whileproceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. MH-17-X-4633, which wasdashed by the truck bearing No. MH-26-AD-1797. There is no disputethat the deceased, Maroti, succumbed to the injuries sustained in thesaid accident. This Court came across with the findings of the Tribunalin paragraphs no. 15 to 20. In paragraph 16, the Tribunal observedthat the alleged accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligentdriving of the truck. Furthermore, it held that there was no need toadd the insurance company of the motorcycle as a party, andtherefore, the claim petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessaryparties. In paragraph 17, the Tribunal has rightly discussed thedefence raised by the insurance company that the driver of theoffending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence atthe time of the accident, which constituted a breach of the terms andconditions of the insurance policy, and held that the insurancecompany is bound to comply with the contract of indemnity it hadwith respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck. 1109-22-FA.odt {6}10.Consequently, the issues contested by the appellant are firstly,the quantum of compensation and secondly, that the share ofClaimants Nos. 2 and 3 was not considered while awardingcompensation to Claimants Nos. 1 and 4.11.Before the Tribunal, the claimants set up the case that thedeceased, Maroti, was working as a supervisor at Jyoti ConstructionCompany, Beed, and was receiving a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.Though Claimant No. 2, Ramdas (son of the deceased), was made tostep into the witness box, he could not produce any documentaryevidence to prove the said fact. Therefore, the Tribunal was left withno alternative but to consider the notional income of the deceased,Maroti, as Rs. 6,000/- per month and this apparently seems to be onthe lower side. However, the same is required to be modified asRs.7,000/- per month. Even as regards to age is concerned, thoughthere is no documentary evidence, the only material that can be reliedupon in such circumstances is the postmortem report. In the instantcase, the postmortem report of the deceased, Maroti, indicates that atthe time of the accident, he was 45 years old. However, the Tribunalassumed the age of the deceased to be about 50 years solely becausethe age of the elder son was shown as 23 years in the title clause ofthe claim petition, and accordingly applied a multiplier of 13. 1109-22-FA.odt {7}Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred inconsidering the age of the deceased, Maroti, as well as the multiplierapplicable to such age group. In view of ratio laid down in SarlaVerma (SMT) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation andAnother, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplayer in the instant caseis 14.12.Now, coming to the ground that the Tribunal did not considerthe share of Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 while awarding compensation, itis noted that the Tribunal observed the dependency of Claimants Nos.2 and 3 in paragraph 21. Merely because Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 wereshown as 23 and 20 years of age respectively in the title clause of theclaim petition, they were not considered as dependents of thedeceased. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erredin not considering their entitlement and, consequently, erred indeducting one-half of the amount towards personal expenses. 13.In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance CompanyLimited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and MagmaGeneral Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 (18) SCC 130, each claimant isentitle for Rs. 40,000/- towards consortium. In the instant appealclaimant No.4 is no more. Therefore, now claimant Nos.1 to 3 areentitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, i.e. Rs.1,20,000
Arguments
1109-22-FA.odt {3}that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 43 years of age,working as a Supervisor in a private construction company, earning asalary of Rs.15,000/- per month, and was the sole source of incomefor the family. On account of the accidental death, they have lost theirsource of income and have therefore claimed compensation undervarious heads to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondents No. 1and 2, jointly and severally.4.Though respondent No. 1 appeared, he failed to file his writtenstatement. Hence, the claim petition proceeded without the writtenstatement of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, the insurancecompany, filed a written statement at Exhibit-18, taking the stand thatthe deceased himself was rash and negligent. The second ground ofobjection was that the driver of the offending truck was not holding avalid driving licence, which amounted to breach of the insurancepolicy. Lastly, it was contended that the insurer of the motorcycle wasnot made a party to the claim petition. Therefore, the insurancecompany sought dismissal of the claim petition against it.5.The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 19.01.2022,granted compensation to the tune ofRs.6,55,000/- with interest at 7%per annum to Claimant No. 1 (wife) and Claimant No. 4, Sonubai(mother of the deceased) 1109-22-FA.odt {4}Feeling aggrieved by above judgment and award, claimants havepreferred the instant appeal on various grounds spelt out in the appealmemo.6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that therashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver were dulydemonstrated before the Tribunal. That, it was also demonstratedbefore the Tribunal that deceased was 43 years of the age; however,the Tribunal failed to consider the same and considered the age ofdeceased as 50 years. That, the tribunal has also failed to consider thatthe deceased was working as a supervisor and earning salary ofRs.15,000/- per month. However, the same is not considered andrather notional income is considered only to the tune of Rs.6,000/- permonth. That, the Tribunal awarded compensation only to ClaimantsNo. 1 and 4, and failed to consider that Claimants No. 2 and 3 werealso dependents of the deceased. Therefore, on both counts, thelearned counsel prays for enhancement of compensation includingclaimants No. 2 and 3.7.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurancecompany supported the impugned judgment and award passed by theTribunal, contending that every aspect put forth before the Tribunalhas been correctly appreciated, and therefore, the impugned judgment
Decision
1109-22-FA.odt {8}plus 10% (Rs.12,000/-) which comes to Rs.1,32,000/-. Consideringthat the deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident, 30%should be awarded towards future prospects instead of 25%.14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled forfollowing compensation.Sr.No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1.Annual Income Rs.7,000 X 12 = 84,000/-84,000/-2.Future Prospects 30% i.e. 25,200 (84,000 + 25,200)1,09,200/-3.1/3 deduction towards personal expenses (i.e.1,09,200 – 36,400)72,800/- 3.Multiplier of 14 (72,800 X 14) 10,19,200/-4.Non-pecuniary Losses:-(i) Loss of Estate (as awarded by the Tribunal)(ii) Funeral expenses (as awarded by the Tribunal)(iii) Loss of consortium and love and affection 15,000/-15,000/-1,32,000/-4.Total compensation to be paid11,81,200/-5.Compensation awarded by Tribunal 6,55,000/-6.Total Enhanced Compensation (i.e. Rs.11,81,000 – 6,55,000)5,26,200/-15.In the result, following order is passed :- 1109-22-FA.odt {9}ORDER(i)First appeal is allowed with proportional costs.(ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2022passed by Adhoc District Judge–1 and Ex-OfficioMember of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nandedin M.A.C.P. No.300 of 2016 is modified.(iii)Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to payenhanced compensation of Rs.5,26,200/- to theclaimants within 12 weeks from today along withinterest @ 7% per annum from the date ofregistration of claim petition till its realization. Theinsurance company is directed to deposit the amountof enhanced compensation in this Court.(iv)Modified award be prepared accordingly.(v)Claimants to pay court fees on enhancedcompensation as per rules.(vi)On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw thesame. ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGES P Rane