High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD958 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3093 OF 20211)Jyoti W/o Natha PandhareAge : 30 years, Occu.: Household.2)Nikita d/o Natha PandhareAge: 11 years, Occu.: Education.3)Nutan d/o Natha PandhareAge: 09 years, Occu.: Education.4) Akashada d/o Natha PandhareAge: 10 years, Occu.: Education.5) Harischandra s/o Shripati PandhareAge: 60 years, Occu.: Nil.6)Parigabai w/o Harischandra PandhareAge; 60 years, Occu.: Nil.7)Aayush s/o Natha PandhareAge: 01 years, Occu.: Nil.Appellant No.02 to 04 & 07 minor U/g.of mother i.e. Applicant No.01.All R/o Nakshatrawadi, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad.….Appellants(Orig. Claimants)Versus1)Vishal S/o Pralhad BhaskarAge: Major, Occu.: Driver/owner,R/o. Fatiyabad, Post.Maliwada,Tq.Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad.2)The Divisional Manager,The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad. …..Respondents {2} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021…..Mr. Pramod C.Mayure, Advocate for Appellants. Mr.K.F. Shingare, Advocate for Respondent no.1.Mr. Mohit R.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent no.2.….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 20 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. Original claimants in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.437of 2019 are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation on account ofaccidental death of husband of claimant no.1 and thereby preferredinstant appeal for enhancement of compensation.2.Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that on20-04-2019, husband of claimant no.1 Jyoti, namely NathaHarischandra Pandhare, was proceeding on Motorcycle towardsChitegaon from Nakshatrawadi and when his Motorcycle hadreached in the vicinity of Allana Company on Aurangabad to Paithanroad, one Eicher Truck bearing no.MH20 DE-3686, which wascoming from opposite direction, gave severe dash to the Motorcyclecausing grievous injuries in which Natha died. It is pointed out thatcrime was registered against Eicher Truck Driver. That, wife, children {3} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021and parents of deceased Natha together set up an accidental claimagainst respondent no.1 Driver/owner of Eicher Truck andrespondent no.2 its insurer. Learned counsel pointed out that therewas rash driving and negligence on the part of Truck Driver andtherefore, both respondents are liable to pay the compensation.3.Learned counsel further pointed out that deceased Natha wasworking as an Operator in Badve Engineering Private Limited. That,his salary slip was placed on record by examining employee of thecompany, however, learned trial Court discarded such evidence andrather granted notional income. According to him, even notionalincome is on lower side. That, as per recent law as well as in view ofNotification / Gazette of State of Maharashtra under the MinimumWages Act, skilled Operator is entitled for consideration of salary tothe tune of Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the same has not beenconsidered by the learned Tribunal. He further pointed out that evenin view of recent judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, when each of theclaimant was entitled for consortium distinctly, learned Tribunal hasmerely awarded joint consortium that too of Rs.40,000/-. For abovereasons, impugned judgment is sought to be set aside by allowingappeal. {4} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 20214.Learned counsel for respondent no.2/Insurance Companyresisted the above appeal by supporting the findings and conclusionreached at by the learned Tribunal. He pointed out that there wasno evidence on behalf of claimants regarding alleged employment ofdeceased as an Operator in Badve Engineering Private Limited. Hepointed out that no employee of said company was examined, ratherwitness examined was employee of another Enterprises, which hadno nexus with alleged Badve Engineering Private Limited, wheredeceased allegedly worked. He also pointed out that, there was nodocumentary evidence to show that fixed salary being received bydeceased or it being credited in the account of deceased as isclaimed. However, learned counsel for respondent no.2/InsuranceCompany fairly conceded that learned Tribunal ought to havegranted consortium to each of the dependent distinctly and notjointly. For above reasons, he seeks indulgence of this Court to thatextent only and urges to maintain the order as regards tocompensation granted by the learned Tribunal on the basis ofnotional income. 5.Heard extensively. Perused the papers. {5} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 20216.In support of the claim, wife of deceased has adduced herevidence at exh.28 and she has also adduced evidence of one RameshGulabrao Saste at Exh.50 and documentary evidence was also placedon record viz. FIR, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, postmortem report, driving licence, fitness certificate of vehicle,insurance policy etc. Respondent does not seem to have adduced anyevidence either documentary or oral. 7.On going through the evidence of PW1 Jyoti, it is emergingthat she has reiterated averments raised in the claim petition. Shedoes not seem to be eye witness, however, there are Police papers,more particularly, FIR and spot panchanama, which on scrutiny showthat Driver of Eicher Truck, which is offending vehicle, has left itscorrect side and had gone to extreme right side of the road, whichwas meant for vehicle proceeding in the direction in which deceasedNatha was proceeding on Motorcycle i.e. in the opposite direction.Therefore, on the basis of spot panchanama, apparently fault lies onthe part the Driver of the offending vehicle. Resultantly, even thisCourt is of the considered opinion that there is negligence on the partDriver of offending vehicle and in view of inquest panchanama andpost mortem report, there is no hesitation to hold that deceased
Legal Reasoning
{6} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021Natha died in a road traffic accident. 8.It seems to be the case of claimants that deceased Natha, whowas 34 years of age, was working as an Operator in BadveEngineering Private Limited as a skilled worker and he was earningsalary of Rs.16,605/- per month. According to claimants, deceasedwas the only earning member of family and his salary was the onlysource of income and they have lost the same due to accidental deathof Natha. PW2 Ramesh is examined at exh.50, however, as pointedout by the learned counsel for the respondents, this witness thoughdeposed about employment and salary of deceased Natha in BadveEngineering Private Limited, this witness does not seem to be anemployee of Badve Engineering Private Limited, which is thecompany wherein deceased was allegedly engaged as an Operator.Therefore, even if this witness has placed documents on record, inview above position, his evidence cannot be relied to accept the caseof the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.16,605/- per month.Apart from this, in view of answers given by PW2 Ramesh in cross-examination, his evidence cannot be straightaway accepted forconsideration of income of deceased. 9.Learned counsel for appellants/claimants has taken objection {7} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021to even consideration of quantum of Rs.8,000/- per month asnotional income, as according to him, even as per recent law andNotification / Gazette under the Minimum Wages Act, income ofdeceased was liable to be considered as Rs.15,000/- per month. Hisspecific contention is that, the said Notification, which has beenrelied by the learned Tribunal, is with regard to unskilled worker,however, in the present case, deceased was a skilled worker and hewas working as an Operator. 10.As stated above, there is no distinct documentary or oralevidence showing deceased to be a skilled worker. Mere, oralsubmission cannot be considered for holding deceased to be a skilledworker. Therefore, no fault can be found in the notional income asconsidered and held by the learned Tribunal. There is no reason tofind fault in the same. 11.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants and asfairly conceded by the learned counsel for respondent no.2/Insurance Company, it is seen that, under the head of consortium,learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- jointly instead ofawarding distinctly to each of the claimants. In view of ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance {8} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias ChuhruRam and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants are entitled forRs.40,000/- each under the head consortium. Apart from this,claimants are also entitled for 10% increase in consortium for eachthree years from the date of award of Tribunal. In the case in hand,there are total seven claimants/dependents, therefore, totalconsortium amount comes to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 7). Thelearned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.40,000/- towardsConsortium. Therefore, amount, which needs to be now paid to theclaimants comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.2,80,000 – Rs.40,000) plus10% increase on said amount i.e. Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, this Courtis of the considered opinion that appellants – claimants are entitledfor enhanced compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.2,40,000 +Rs.24,000) alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of registrationof claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, following order ispassed. : ORDER(i)First Appeal is partly allowed. {9} FIRST APPEAL 3093 OF 2021(ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 10-08-2021passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Aurangabad, in M.A.C.P. No.437 of 2019 ismodified.(iii)Respondent no.2/Insurance Company to payenhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,64,000/- toappellants – claimants within 12 weeks from today alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date ofregistration of claim petition till its realization.(iv)Rest of the award of the learned Tribunal ismaintained. (v)Modified award be prepared accordingly.(vi)Claimants to pay court fees on enhancedcompensation as per Rules.(vii)On deposit of the amount by respondent no.2/Insurance Company, appellants – claimants are permittedto withdraw the same as per apportionment mentioned bythe learned Tribunal in its Judgment and order. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT