High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
FA-2390-2020-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.2390 OF 20201.Smt. Pushpa Santosh Mundada,Age : 35 years, Occu. : Household, 2.Rukhmabai Govind Mundada, Age : 55 years, Occu. : Household, 3.Chi. Mahesh Santosh Mundada,Age : 12 years, Occu. : Education, 4.Ku. Harshali Santosh Mundada,Age : 10 years, Occu. : Education, 5.Chi. Monu Santosh Mundada, Age : 8 years, Occu. : Education, Applicant No.1 is for herself and the Natural Guardian as mother of No.3 to 5, all are r/o Mauje Mehru, G. 101, MIDC, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon … Appellants(Orig.Claimants) Versus1.Shri Surjeet Singh, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, Vehicle owner, R/o. Kurad, Tahsil Sangad, Tal and Dist. Kota, Rajasthan.2.The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.Reg. HO – New India Assurance Building,87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai.Through New India Assurance Company Ltd.Mandore Market, Dadhiwala Bunglow, Mehrum Road, At and Post Jalgaon.… Respondents.…..Mr. M M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for Respondent No.2.Respondent No.1 served through paper publication.….. FA-2390-2020-2-CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :11 JULY 2025PRONOUNCED ON :22 JULY 2025 JUDGMENT : 1.Original claimants, who are legal heirs of deceasedSantosh Govindram Mundara, who met death on account of roadtraffic accident dated 22.05.2005, have preferred instant appeal,getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by learnedMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon dated 11.01.2012 inM.A.C.P. No. 80 of 2005. (Parties are referred to as per their statusin the trial court.)2.In short case set up by claimants is that, deceasedSantosh, who was traveling in Maruti Car from Aurangabad toJalgaon for business purpose along with his friends, met with anaccident on account dash given by truck owned by respondent no.1and the said vehicle insured by respondent no.2, in which he sufferedinjuries and succumbed to the same. It is assertion of the claimantsthat deceased was sole source of earning. Deceased was Industrialistcum Businessman and earned around over Rs. 80,000/- per month.He was income tax payer and as such tax returns are placed atExh.44. That, there would have been rise in the income and as suchthey set up claim of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum towards loss of income. FA-2390-2020-3- Appellant no.1 is the widow and wife of deceased Santosh,appellant no.2 is the mother of deceased, who is said to be alsodepending on him; appellant nos.3 to 5 are children. Age of deceasedSantosh was given as 30 years at the time of accident and as suchunder various heads claim was set up to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-.3.Learned Tribunal after issuing notice, appreciated theevidence of claimant no.2, copy of FIR, spot panchanama, P.M.report, driving licence of offending vehicle, school identity card. R.C.particulars of vehicle, partnership deed, salary slip and income taxreturn. Present respondent Insurance Company insurer of thetruck alone resisted the claim. After appreciating the respective cases, by judgment andorder dated 11.01.2012, learned Tribunal has directed compensationto the tune of Rs.6,47,000/- at the rate of 7.5% interest and it to bepaid jointly and severally by respondent nos.1 and 2.4.In this appeal, case set up is grant of lower compensationon the ground that income tax returns are not considered. Instead ofconsidering compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum only 50% is FA-2390-2020-4-considered. That, learned Tribunal granted loss of consortium to onlywidow and not to mother and children. That, there were fiveclaimants, and therefore, deduction is also improper. That, noamount is awarded for future prospects and meager amount isgranted under the head of funeral expenses. Learned counsel hasplaced written notes of arguments on record along with calculations.5.Learned counsel for Insurance Company resisted on theground that it has come on record that, industries which were allegedto be source of income, are still functioning and as such, there was noloss of income. Income considered by Tribunal is just and proper.However, he conceded that, in view of judgment of Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. PranaySethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General InsuranceCo. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC130, amount towards consortium, loss of estate and future prospectsare not granted and he has no objection for granting compensationunder such heads.6.Re-analyzed the evidence. In support of case of deceasedSantosh to be an Industrialist and partners in three firms,documentary evidence is placed on record, very mother of claimant,who has stepped into witness box, has admitted that the industries FA-2390-2020-5-are still functioning. Therefore, practically there is no loss of income.Learned Tribunal has considered the income tax papers and bygiving detail explanation in para 9 has reached to the finding thatincome of deceased was to the tune of Rs.80,420/-. Even in writtennotes para 3 claimants have considered and asserted such annualincome. 7.As pointed and even fairly admitted by learned counselfor Insurance Company, learned Tribunal has not consideredcompensation under the head of consortium to mother and children.No amount is awarded towards future prospects as directed in thecase of Pranay Shethi (Supra). Similarly, appellants are also entitledfor reasonable compensation under the head of loss of estate andfuneral expenses. .In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) andMagma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ramand Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, i.e. 2,00,000 /- plus 40% (Rs.80,000/-) which comes toRs.2,80,000/- towards consortium and loss of love and affection. Rs.15,000/- plus 40% (Rs.6,000/-), which comes to Rs.21,000/- towardsloss of estate and Rs.15,000/- plus 40% (Rs. 6,000/-), which comes toRs.21,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Decision
FA-2390-2020-6-.In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitledfor following compensation.HeadCompensation Amount1Annual Income Rs.50,000/- 2.Future Prospects 40%i.e. 20,000 (50,000 + 20,000) Rs.70,000/-2(-) 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses (70,000 – 17,500/-) Rs.52,500/-3Multiplier 17(52,500 x 17 ) Rs.8,92,500/- 4Non pecuniary damagesLoss of consortiumRs.2,80,000/-Funeral Expenses-Rs.21,000/-Loss of Estate-Rs.21,000/- Rs. 3,22,000/-5Total compensation awarded Rs. 12,14,500/-6(-) Compensation awarded by M.A.C.T. Rs. 6,47,000/7Enhanced Compensation Rs. 5,67,500/-.In the result, following order is passed :- ORDER(i)Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. FA-2390-2020-7-(ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2012, passed bythe Member of M.A.C.T., Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No.80 of 2005 ismodified.(iii)Respondent no.2 - insurance company to pay enhancedcompensation of Rs.5,67,500/- to claimants within 12 weeks fromtoday along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date ofregistration of claim petition till its realization.(iv)Modified award be prepared accordingly.(v)Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation as perrules.(vi)On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)Tandale