High Court
Legal Reasoning
18-FA-469-19 Jt1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2019WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7455 OF 2020 IN FA/469/2019ICICI Lombard General InsuranceCompany Ltd., Through its ManagerA/p. Third Floor, Adventure Towners,In front of Boeroy Hotel, Manmad Road,Dist. Ahmednagar.… Appellant (Orig. Respondent No.2)VERSUS1. Meena Parmanand Pandey Age: 39 years, Occu.: Nil.2. Anjali @ Sikha Parmanand Pandey Age : 15 years, Occu.: Nil.3. Akash @ Sibu Parmanand Pandey Age : 13 years, Occu.: Nil.4. Vikas @ Risu Parmanand Pandey Age : 10 years, Occu.: Nil. 5. Suryanath Ramlal Pandey Age : 80 years, Occu.: Nil Respondent No.1 is natural legal guardian mother of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 All R/o. Paraspura, post Dumrao, Thana, Saray Lakhansi, Dist. Mau, (Uttar Pradesh) 6. V.E. Commercial Vehicles Ltd. (A Volvo Group & Eicher Motors Joint Venture) At 102, Industrial Area No.1, Pithampur, Dist. Dhar, Madhya Pradesh Pin Code No.454 775 [Owner of vehicle Chassis… Respondents No.MC2RTFCO 41761](Resp. Nos.1 to 5 Ori. Respondents & Resp No.6 Orig. Resp. No.1)S.P. Rane 1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
18-FA-469-19 Jt2 ......Mr. Abhijit G. Choudhari, Advocate for AppellantMr. A.C. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5Mr. V.L. Bhange, Advocate h/f Mr. K.D. Jadhav, Advocate forRespondent No.6...... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Heard.2.Admit. Taken up for final hearing with consent of theparties. 3.By this appeal filed under section 173 of the MotorVehicle Act, insurance company challenges the judgment andaward passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagarin M.A.C.P. No.356 of 2015.4.Paramanand Pandey was proceeding on his bicyclefrom Nagapur towards Nagar city on Nagar-Manmad road on20.08.2015, at about 8.00 a.m., when he reached in front ofHundekari showroom, one vehicle having chassis body make2015 Eicher bearing chassis No. MC2R1NRTOFC041761 camefrom back side and gave forceful dash to the bicycle ofdeceased. Paramanand sustained serious injuries in theaccident and was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, butwas declared dead on reaching the Hospital. Crime No. I-S.P. Rane 2 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt3 100/2015 under sections 304-A, 279, 338 of the Indian PenalCode and under sections 184, 134 (a)(b), 171 of MotorVehicles Act, was registered with Tofkhana Police Station. 5.Wife, children and father of the deceased filed claimapplication claiming compensation of Rs.31,50,800/-contending that, Paramanand was aged 42 years at the time ofaccident and was serving as Supervisor in M/s. S.M.Engineering Company, M-19, M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar and hewas getting salary of Rs.16,000/- per month with increment ofRs.1,000/- per year.6.Opponent No.1/owner filed written statement anddenied the claim. It is contended that, at the relevant time,the offending vehicle was insured with opponentNo.2/insurance company. 7.Opponent No.2/insurance company filed writtenstatement and claimed breach of terms and conditions ofinsurance policy. It is also claimed that driver of the vehiclewas not holding valid and effective driving licence. The Chassiswas being used without valid permit and fitness and inviolation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, theinsurance company is not liable to pay compensation. S.P. Rane 3 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt4 8.The Tribunal after recording evidence and hearingparties, allowed the claim and awarded compensation ofRs.29,10,800 along with 9% interest per annum. Insurancecompany is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. 9.Heard learned advocate for insurance company,learned advocate for claimants and learned advocate forowner. Perused the record.10.Learned advocate for the appellant submits that theTribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation and haserred in adding 30% future prospects. The Tribunal hasawarded excess compensation towards non-pecuniary heads.Therefore, he submits that compensation awarded by theTribunal needs to be reduced. 11.Learned advocate for claimants No.1 to 5 supportedthe impugned judgment and award. According to him, theTribunal has rightly calculated the compensation amount andthere is no merit in the appeal. 12.Learned advocate for owner/respondent no.6 submitsthat at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was insuredwith the appellant/insurance company and the driver washolding valid licence, therefore, insurance company is liable topay compensation. S.P. Rane 4 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt5 13. Neither the accident is disputed nor the death ofdeceased Paramanand in the said accident. Claimants haveproduced on record, sufficient evidence to indicate that at thetime of accident, deceased was 42 years old and was servingas Supervisor in M/s. S.M. Engineering Company, M-19,M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar and was getting salary of Rs.16,000/-per month with increment of Rs.1,000/- per annum. Thesecontentions of claimants are supported by the evidence ofwitness No.2 examined by claimants namely; SarjuprasadRamdhani Yadav, owner of the Engineering Company. He hasalso placed on record salary sheet, attendance sheet atExhibits 31 to 36, which supports the contention of claimantsthat deceased was getting salary of Rs.16,000/- per monthwith annual increment of Rs.1,000/- per annum. Nothingdamaging to the evidence of claimants or the owner ofEngineering Company, is brought on record in his cross-examination by the insurance company. Considering thisevidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion thatdeceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.16,000/-. Learned advocate for insurance company hasstrenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred in assessing themonthly income to Rs.20,800/-, when there is evidence onS.P. Rane 5 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt6 record to indicate that he was getting monthly salary ofRs.16,000/-.14.Learned advocate for claimants, on the other hand,submits that this figure is arrived at by adding 30% futureprospects in the monthly earning of the deceased, andtherefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income ofdeceased at Rs.20,800/-.15.There appears merit in the submission of claimantsthat though the Tribunal has not clarified that 30% futureprospects is added in the monthly income of deceased, thecalculation arrived at by the Tribunal indicates that 30% futureprospects is added in terms of National Insurance CompanyLimited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680, andhence, Rs.20,800/- is arrived at by the Tribunal, which cannotbe faulted with.16.There is no dispute about 1/4th deduction towardspersonal expenses and applicability of multiplier of 14 as thedeceased was 42 years old at the time of accident. 17.Consortium awarded by the Tribunal @ Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of care and guidance to the children i.e. claimantNos.2 to 4, appears to be a bit on higher side. As per PranaySethi and others (supra), claimants are entitled for consortiumS.P. Rane 6 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt7 @ Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, claimant Nos.2 to 4 areentitled to Rs.1,20,000/- towards consortium. Though claimantNo.5 i.e. father of deceased is entitled for filial consortium ofRs.40,000/-, as per Pranay Sethi and others (supra), theTribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loveand affection to him. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.55,000/-towards transportation charges as the dead body was taken toUttar Pradesh and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, which inthe facts of the present case are not liable to be interferedwith. 18.In Pranay Sethi and others (supra), it is held:“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceedto record our conclusions:(i)…..…(ii)…….. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of50% of actual salary to the income of thedeceased towards future prospects, where thedeceased had a permanent job and was belowthe age of 40 years, should be made. Theaddition should be 30%, if the age of thedeceased was between 40 to 50 years. In casethe deceased was between the age of 50 to 60years, the addition should be 15%. Actualsalary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on afixed salary, an addition of 40% of theestablished income should be the warrantwhere the deceased was below the age of 40years. An addition of 25% where the deceasedS.P. Rane 7 of 9 18-FA-469-19 Jt8 was between the age of 40 to 50 years and10% where the deceased was between the ageof 50 to 60 years should be regarded as thenecessary method of computation. Theestablished income means the income minusthe tax component.” 19.In view of above observations in clause (iv), sincethe deceased was on fixed salary, 25% addition has to bemade towards future prospects. 20.In view of the aforestated discussion, claimants areentitled for following compensation:-Sr.No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1.Monthly Income + 25% towards futureprospects(i.e. 16,000 + Rs.4,000 = Rs. 20,000)1/4th Deduction from monthly incometowards personal expenditure ofdeceased(i.e. Rs.20,000 - Rs.5,000 =Rs.15,000/-) Annual Income (Rs.15,000 x 12 =Rs.1,80,000/-) Rs. 1,80,000/-2.Annual dependency multiplied bymultiplier (1,80,000 x 14) Rs. 25,20,000/-3.Non-pecuniary Losses:-Loss of consortium granted by Tribunal toclaimant No.1 = Rs.1,00,000/-Loss consortium to claimant Nos. 2 to 4(Rs.40,000x3) = Rs.1,20,000/-Loss of filial consortiumto claimant No.5 = Rs. 40,000-Transportation Charges granted by Tribunal= Rs. 55,000/-Funeral Expenses granted byTribunal = Rs. 25,000/-Rs.3,40,000/-7.Total compensation needs to be awardedRs.28,60,000/-8.Compensation awarded by the TribunalRs.29,10,800/-9.Excess compensation awarded byTribunal(Rs.29,10,800 – Rs.28,60,000)Rs. 50,800/-S.P. Rane 8 of 9
Decision
18-FA-469-19 Jt9 21.In the result, following order:-ORDER(i)First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionatecosts.(ii)Judgment and award passed by learned MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar inM.A.C.P No.356/2015 is modified andRespondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severallyheld liable to pay compensation ofRs.28,60,600/- to the claimants along withinterest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claimpetition till realization of the amount inclusive ofno faulty liability amount(iii) Rest of the award is maintained.(iv)Claimants are entitled to withdraw the balanceamount along with accrued interest. (v) Excess amount of compensation along withaccrued interest be refunded to the insurancecompany. 22.Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane 9 of 9