High Court
Legal Reasoning
25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2020 1] Satyabhama W/o Pandurang PadoleAge: 30 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mudi, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.2] Gajanan S/o Pandurang Padole ,Age: 14 years, Occ. Education3] Dhananjay S/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 12 years, Occ. EducationAppellants No.2 and 3 are minors U/g. of their real mother appellant No. 1 R/o. as above...APPELLANTS (Orig. Claimants)VERSUSMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation Through its Divisional Controller, Gangakhed Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. RESPONDENT(Orig. Respondent)…Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. Kalani Pravin N.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Wange Anand D....FIST APPEAL NO. 683 OF 20201] Ranjanabai W/o Mugaji @ Bandu PadoleAge: 30 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Mudi, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.2) Vaishanavi D/o Mugaji @ Bandu PadoleAge: 4 years, Occ. Education,3] Dhanshri D/o Mugaji @ Bandu Padole,Age: 2 years, Occ. Education, Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors U/g. of their real mother appellant No. 14] Sakhubai W/o Bhagaram Padole,Age: 50 years, Occ. Education, R/o. as above.1/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odt5) Bhagaramji S/o Mugaji Padole,Age: 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o, as above.… APPELLANTS (Orig. Claimants)VERSUSMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation Through its Divisional Controller, Gangakhed Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. RESPONDENT(Orig. Respondent)…Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. Kalani Pravin N.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Wange Anand D.…FIRST APPEAL NO. 684 OF 20201]Prayagbai W/o Madhav Padole,Age: 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mudi, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.2]Nivratti S/o Madhavrao PadoleAge: 22 years, Occ. Education R/o. as above.3]Sopan S/o Madhavrao Padole,Age: 20 years, Occ. Education R/o. as above....APPELLANTS (Orig. Claimant)VERSUSMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation Through its Divisional Controller, Gangakhed Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. RESPONDENT(Orig. Respondent)…Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. Kalani Pravin N.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Wange Anand D.…2/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtFIRST APPEAL NO. 685 OF 20201]Godawaribai W/o Balaji Rengade,Age: 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Dagadgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.2] Krashanaji S/o Balaji Rengade,Age: 22 years, Occ. Education, R/o. Dagadgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli....APPELLANTS (Orig. Claimants)VERSUSMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation Through its Divisional Controller, Gangakhed Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. RESPONDENT(Orig. Respondent)…Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. Kalani Pravin N.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Wange Anand D.…FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 20201] Ushabai W/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 34 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mudi, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.2] Mayuri D/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 14 years, Occ. Education3] Madhuri D/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 12 years, Occ. Education4] Komal D/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 12 years, Occ. Education5] Bapurao S/o Pandurang Padole,Age: 8 years, Occ. Education6] Sunil S/o Pandurang PadoleAge: 6 years, Occ. EducationAppellants No. 2 to 6 are Minors 3/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtU/g. of their real mother appellant No.1Sakhubai W/o Bapurao Padole Died....APPELLANTS(Orig. Claimants)VERSUSMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation Through its Divisional Controller, Gangakhed Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ..RESPONDENT(Orig. Respondent)…Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. Kalani Pravin N.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Wange Anand D.…CORAM: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.DATE: 14.10.2025PER COURT : First Appeal Nos. 683/2020, 684/2020, 686/2020 are not on board.Taken on board, on mentioning.2.Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.3.These appeals are arising out of a self-same accident, which took placeon 12.07.2011, in which five persons died. The claimants preferred differentclaim petitions. Those are decided by distinct judgments and awards passedon 25.07.2016 granting compensation to them. The submissions of thecounsels are common and appeals can be decided by a common judgment.4. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Kalani submits that thecompensation determined by the Tribunal is not reasonable and just. Nocompensation is awarded towards future prospects. It is submitted thatunder the head of 'consortium' the claimants are entitled to receive thecompensation per capita. It is further submitted that for funeral expensesinstead of Rs. 10,000/- an amount of Rs. 15,000/- should have beenawarded. The appellants are entitled to the enhancement in the4/11
Legal Reasoning
25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtcompensation considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in thematter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others;(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680.5.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Wange, appearing for the respondent-Corporation supports the impugned judgments. It is submitted that theTribunal has arrived at just and reasonable compensation and nointerference is called for. He would submit that the consortium per capita isnot permissible and it has to be awarded aggregately. Reliance is placed onthe judgment of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors;AIR Online 2018 SC 189 and Pranay Sethi (supra). It is further submittedthat when the claimants are major, they are not entitled to get compensationunder the head of 'consortium'. It is further submitted that the Tribunalshould not have awarded amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love andaffection. 6.Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, I find thatfollowing are the necessary particulars in each appeal :Sr. No.First Appeal No.M.A.C.P. NO.Number of claimantsCompensationawarded Rs.1)581/2020572/2011034,80,000/-2)685/2020573/2011023,99,000/-3)684/2020576/2011038,49,671/-4)683/2020574/2011055,64,000/-5)686/1010575/2011075,64,000/- 7.It is not disputed that the accident took place on 12.07.2011, whendeceased were travelling in a jeep, which met with an accident with a busof the respondent- Corporation. The factum of accident and death of thepersons are evident. The claimants adduced oral evidence. 8.The claims are objected by the respondent-Corporation by filingwritten statements. It was contended that the accident occurred due to rash5/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtand negligent driving of the jeep driver. All the pleadings of the claimantsare denied. The respondent-Corporation adduced oral evidence of twowitnesses.9.The Tribunal by distinct judgments and awards passed on 25.07.2016awarded the compensation in each case along with interest at the rate of7.5% per annum payable from the date of petition till its realization. Therespondent-Corporation is held liable to pay compensation. Theapportionment of the compensation has also been stipulated in theimpugned judgment. 10.The respondent-Corporation did not prefer any appeal against thejudgments and awards passed by the Tribunal.11.In most of the claim petitions, the deceased were agriculturists andthere was no fixed income, which could be brought on record. Therefore,notional income of Rs. 3500/- per month was considered and accordinglyannual income of Rs. 42,000/- was calculated. However, in one of thematters the deceased is shown to have been working with sugar factory andhis annual income is considered to be Rs. 94,000/-. In none of the matters,the future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal.12.In view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in PranaySethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to have addition of future prospects.Sr.No.First Appeal No.M.A.C.P. NO.Age of thedeceasedFutureprospects 1)581/2020572/20114025%2)685/2020573/20114825%3)684/2020576/20115025%4)683/2020574/20113540%5)686/1010575/20114025%13.I have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the point asto whether the compensation towards consortium shall be awarded in6/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtaggregate or per capita. I have gone through paragraph No. 52 of thejudgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Towards consortium an amount ofRs. 40,000/- has been earmarked. Simultaneously, it reveals that no amountof compensation is payable towards love and affection. 14.Learned counsel Mr. Wange for respondent-Corporation has rightlycited judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwatiand Ors.; AIR Online 2020 SC 717. I have gone through paragraph nos. 40to 44. It has been clearly laid down that towards loss of love and affection,compensation under separate head is impermissible. The claimants are notentitled to anything towards love and affection. 15.Rival submissions are made in respect of awarding of compensationtowards consortium. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.( supra)the Supreme Court has explained the concept of consortium in paragraphno. 8.7. In that matter however Rs. 40,000/- was awarded towardsconsortium to father and sister each. Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)did not prescribe restriction for awarding the consortium. Considering thepurport of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium, Iam of the considered view that consortium needs to be awarded per capita.The submissions of Mr. Kalani in this regard will have to be accepted in allmatters. The consortium of Rs. 40,000/- per claimant is payable to thedependents. 16.Another controversy in this matter is that few of the claimants aremajor. Learned counsel Mr. Wange for the respondent-Corporation stronglyobjected for awarding of the consortium to the claimants, who are major. Ido not find that age is the criteria prescribed either in the matters of PranaySethi or in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. by the Supreme Court. If thepurpose for awarding consortium is taken into consideration, then even themajor persons are entitled to receive parental consortium or spousalconsortium or filial consortium. The submissions of Mr. Wange in this7/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtregard cannot be approved. 17.In all the matters, only Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards funeralexpenses. Going by the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) in eachmatter Rs. 15,000/- is payable to the claimants towards funeral expenses.18.Particulars of the compensation amount payable to the appellants areas follows :F.A.No.581/2020 (Satyabhama Padole and others Vs. MSRTC):1.Yearly income @ Rs. 3500/- per month x 1242,000/-2.Yearly income after addition of 25% towards future prospects (42,000 + 10,500)52,500/-3.Actual yearly future loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses (52,500/- minus 17,500/-)35,000/-4.Total future loss of income after applying multiplier ‘15’ (35,000 x 15)5,25,000/-5.Consortium (40,000 x 3)1,20,000/-6.Funeral expenses15,000/-Total compensation (4+5+6)6,60,000/-F.A.No.683/2020 (Ranjanabai Padole & Oth. Vs. MSRTC):1.Yearly income @ Rs. 3,500 Per month x 1242,000/-2.Yearly income after addition of 40% towards future prospects (42,000 + 16,800)58,800/-3.Actual yearly future loss of income after deduction of 1/4th amount towards personalexpenses (58,800/- minus 14,700/-)44,100/-4.Total future loss of income after applying multiplier ‘16’ (44,100 x 16)7,05,600/-5.Consortium (40,000 x 5)2,00,000/-6.Funeral expenses15,000/-Total compensation (4+5+6)9,20,600/- 8/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtF.A.684/2020 ( Prayagbai Padole & oth. Vs. MSRTC):1.Yearly income 94,000/-2.Yearly income after addition of 25% towards future prospects (94,000 + 23,500)1,17,500/-3.Actual yearly future loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses (1,17,500 minus 39,167)78,333/-4.Total future loss of income after applying multiplier ‘13’ (78,333 x 13)10,18,329/-5.Consortium (40,000 x 3)1,20,000/-6.Funeral expenses15,000/-Total compensation (4+5+6)11,53,329/-F.A.No.685/2020 (Godawaribai Rengade & Oth. Vs. MSRTC):1.Yearly income @ Rs. 3,500 Per month x 1242,000/-2.Yearly income after addition of 25% towards future prospects (42,000 + 10,500)52,500/-3.Actual yearly future loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses (52,500 minus 17,500)35,000/-4.Total future loss of income after applying multiplier ‘13’ (35,000 x 13)4,55,000/-5.Consortium (40,000 x 2)80,000/-6.Funeral expenses15,000/-Total compensation (4+5+6)5,50,000/-9/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odtF.A.No.686/2020 (Ushabai Padole & oth Vs. MSRTC)1.Yearly income @ Rs. 3,500 Per month x 1242,000/-2.Yearly income after addition of 25% towards future prospects (42,000 + 10,500)52,500/-3.Actual yearly future loss of income after deduction of 1/5th amount towards personal expenses (52,500 minus 10,500)42,000/4.Total future loss of income after applying multiplier ‘15’ (42,000 x 15)6,30,000/-5.Consortium (40,000 x 7)2,80,000/-6.Funeral expenses15,000/-Total compensation (4+5+6)9,25,000/-19.For the aforesaid reasons, I propose to enhance the compensation infollowing manner:(A)First Appeals are partly allowed.(B)The impugned judgments and awards dated25.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Parbhani, which are under challenge are modified to theextent of quantum of compensation, but rest of the awardis maintained. (C)The appellants claimants shall receivecompensation as detailed in paragraph No. 18, which issummarized as under :(i)The appellants in First Appeal No.581/2020 shall entitled to receive compensationof Rs. 6,60,000/-.(ii)The appellants in First Appeal No. 683/2020shall entitled to receive compensation of Rs.9,20,600/-.10/11 25 FA 581 OF 2020.odt(iii)The appellants in First Appeal No. 684/2020shall entitled to receive compensation of Rs.11,53,329/-.(iv)The appellants in First Appeal No. 685/2020shall entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.(iv)The appellants in First Appeal No. 686/2020shall entitled to receive compensation of Rs.9,25,000/-.(d)The respondent-Corporation shall deposit theenhanced compensation before Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Parbhani.(e)Awards be drawn accordingly.(f)The appellant shall pay the deficit court-fees, ifany, considering the enhancement of the compensation. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/-11/11