High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} 911-fa-2556-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2556 OF 2016Sunanda W/o Anand UplanchewarAge- 48 years, Occ. Household,R/o. 107, Mangalwar Peth,Behind Kamala Devi HospitalSidhi Balaji Heights, Flat No. 7,3rd Floor, Pune-11.….APPELLANT[Orig. Claimant] VERSUS1.Jogindarsingh Guljarsingh KhairaAge- Major, Occ- Business,R/o. Dashmesh Nagar, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.2.The Branch Manager,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Dayawan Complex, Station Road,Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.…..RESPONDENTS [Orig. Respondents]…..Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate for appellantMr. P.B. Kulkarni h/f Mr. N.B. Narwadkar, Advocate for respondentNo. 1Mr. A.B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No. 2....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Admit. Heard finally.2.By this appeal, claimant challenges judgment andaward passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, inMotor Accident Claim Petition No. 263 of 2013.Bhagyawant Punde {2} 911-fa-2556-20163.On 05.03.2013, Anand Chandrakant Uplanchewar,wife Sunanda Uplanchewar, son Ankush, daughter Ankita, sister-in-law Shubhangi, brother-in-law Tanju and niece Shweta wereproceeding to Parbhani for the program of Dohal-jewan of UmaUplanchewar in Omni car bearing registration No. MH-12-GR-6584. Anand was driving the car. At about, 6.00 to 6.30 am,when their car reached near Panhera shivar on Pathri-Parbhaniroad, at that time, one truck bearing registration No. MH-26-H-6313 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent mannerand gave severe dash to the car of claimants. Due to theaccident, Anand, Ankush and Ankita and one more inmate in thecar expired on the spot and rest of the occupants of the car wereinjured.4.Claimant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.263/2013 claiming compensation of Rs. 34,40,500/-.The Tribunal after hearing the parties partly allowedthe claim by awarding compensation of Rs. 22,60,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest per annum. Claimant is aggrieved by nongrant of compensation under the head, ‘future prospects’ by theTribunal.Bhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{3} 911-fa-2556-20165.Heard learned advocate for claimant, learnedadvocate for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate forrespondent No. 2. Perused the record.6.Learned advocate for claimant submits that theTribunal has erred in denying compensation under the headfuture prospects. In view of decision in Smt. Sarla Verma andothers vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. PranaySethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimant is entitled for15% addition towards future prospects.7.Learned advocate for insurance company, on theother hand, strenuously opposed the claim of claimantcontending that Tribunal has rightly denied compensation underthe head future prospects by relying on decision of this Court inNew India Insurance Co. Vs. Alpa Rajesh Shah, 2013 C.J. (Bom)1623.8.Learned advocate for respondent No. 1/owneropposed the claim contending that insurance company is liable tothe compensation and not the owner.9.Perusal of record shows that accidental death ofBhagyawant Punde {4} 911-fa-2556-2016deceased is not in dispute. Claimant Sunanda is the eye witnessto the accident. The Tribunal by relying on the version ofclaimant Sunanda and police papers has rightly held thataccident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of thetruck.10.In support of contention that deceased was servingin Army Base Workshop, Kirkee, Pune and was drawing salary ofRs. 28,326/- per month, PW 2 Dilipkumar Sarjerao wasexamined who was serving as accounts officer in the army. Hehas deposed that deceased Anand was drawing salary of Rs.28,326/- and also placed on record salary certificates.11.The Tribunal held gross salary of deceased at Rs.28,326/- and assessed net salary at Rs. 25,000/- and furtherassessed notional income of deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/-.Considering the dependency, Tribunal has deducted 1/3rdamount towards personal expenses and has assessed Rs.2,00,000/- as annual dependency. The Tribunal has furtherobserved that “as there is no evidence brought on record inrespect of future prospectus in view of principle laid down inNew India Insurance Co. Vs. Alpa Rajesh Shah (cited supra)claim in respect of future prospectus cannot be considered.”Bhagyawant Punde {5} 911-fa-2556-201612.The Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the aboveratio ignoring the fact that in this case deceased was inGovernment service and drawing salary and he was not self-employed. The Tribunal has also ignored the ratio in Pranay Sethi(supra) that;“58.------------. Judicial notice can be takenof the fact that salary does not remain the same.When a person is in a permanent job, there is alwaysan enhancement due to one reason or the other. Tolay down as a thumb rule that there will be noaddition after 50 years will be an unacceptableconcept.” 13.Reliance is placed on paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi(supra) by learned advocate for insurance company to contendthat claimant may be entitled for 15% future prospects. Para59.3 reads thus:“59.3While determining the income, anaddition of 50% of actual salary to the income of thedeceased towards future prospects, where thedeceased had a permanent job and was below theage of 40 years, should be made. The addition shouldbe 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40to 50 years. In case the deceased was between theage of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.Actual salary should be read as actual salary lesstax.”14.In the same judgment, para 59.4 reads thus:Bhagyawant Punde {6} 911-fa-2556-2016“59.4.In case the deceased was self-employedor on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of theestablished income should be the warrant where thedeceased was below the age of 40 years. An additionof 25% where the deceased was between the age of40 t0 50 years and 10% where the deceased wasbetween the age of 50 t0 60 years should beregarded as the necessary method of computation.The established income means the income minus thetax component.”15.Learned advocate for insurance company hasvehemently submitted that only wife is the claimant in thepresent matter and therefore 50% amount should have beendeducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses. TheTribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personalexpenses. After deducting half amount, future prospects may beawarded.In reply, learned advocate for claimant submits thateven son of the deceased namely Ankush has expired in the saidaccident and daughter-in-law and grand son of the deceasedwere dependent on deceased and therefore, Tribunal has rightlydeducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. 16.Be that as it may, admittedly, insurance company hasnot filed appeal challenging the said aspect of deduction of 1/3rdamount towards personal expenses. Hence, this Court is notBhagyawant Punde {7} 911-fa-2556-2016inclined to accept the submission of insurance company.17.In view of observations in the above quotedparagraph, since deceased was in a Government service, anaddition of 15% of the established income needs to be made asthe deceased was above the age of 50 years. The establishedincome of the deceased is Rs. 25,000/- per month and annualincome is Rs. 3,00,000/-, in which 15% addition of Rs. 45,000/-needs to be made towards future prospects. Claimant istherefore entitled for following compensation.Sr. No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1Notional Income Rs. 25,000+future prospects @ 15% i.e.3,750/-28,750/-2Annual Notional Income28750 x 123,45,000/-3Less 1/3rd Deduction i.e. Rs.(3,45,000 – 1,15,000)2,30,000/-4Annual Notional IncomeMultiplied by multiplier of 11(2,30,000 x 11)25,30,000/-5Non Pecuniary damagesawarded by Tribunal:i)Loss of Consortium and loveand affection- 50,000/-ii) Funeral Expenses- 10,000/-60,000/-6Total Compensation needs tobe awarded25,90,000/-7Compensation awarded byTribunal22,60,000/-Bhagyawant Punde {8} 911-fa-2556-20168Total Enhanced compensation(25,90,000 – 22,60,000)3,30,000/-18.In the result, following order:ORDER(I)First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.(II)Impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2015,passed by Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Parbhani in M.A.C.P. No. 263/2013 is hereby modified.(III)Respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally heldliable to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/-to the claimant.(IV)Claimant shall be entitled for interest @ 7.5 per annumon the enhanced compensation from the date of filing ofclaim till realization.V)Insurance Company shall deposit enhancedcompensation along with accrued interest in the Tribunalwithin 12 weeks from the date of uploading of thisjudgment.(VI)Claimant to pay additional Court fees on enhancedamount as per rules. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]Bhagyawant Punde