High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
FA-1878-2021-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1878 OF 20211.Suvarnamala W/o. Govind Bombade,Age ; 29 years, Occu. : Household, 2.Aaryan S/o. Govind Bombade,Age : 11 years, Occu. : Education,3.Sayali D/o Govind Bombade,Age : 06 years, Occu. : Education,(Appellans Nos.2 & 3 are minors, Representing through NaturalGuardian Mother i.e. Appellant No.1)4.Ram S/o. Dnyanoba Bombade,Age : 66 years, Occu. : Nil.,5.Surekha W/o. Ram Bombade, Age: 61 years, Occu. : Nil.,All R/o. Venkatesh Nagar, Amba Hanman Colony No.3,Ambejogai Road, Latur,Tq & Dist. Latur… Appellants (Orig. Claimants)Versus1.Tanaji S/o. Waghambhar Mitkari, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, R/o. Janwal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur (Owner of Tempo)2.Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.Shop No. 32 & 34, Navander Arcade, Kava Road,Opp. Market Yard, Gate No.2,Latur – 413 512… Respondents. (Orig. Defendants) FA-1878-2021-2-…..Mr. Ram S. Shinde, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.…..CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :13 AUGUST 2025PRONOUNCED ON :26 AUGUST 2025JUDGMENT : 1.Original claimant nos.1 to 5, who instituted M.A.C.P.No.254 of 2013 under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, aredissatisfied by grant of compensation by learned Ad-hoc DistrictJudge-1 & Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laturdated 06.05.2019. BRIEF FACTS2.Claimants, who are heirs of deceased Govind filed aboveclaim petition on the premise that on 27.08.2013, while deceasedwas proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. MH-24-W-293 overChakur to Latur road, while in the vicinity Mahalangra Pati, tempobearing no.MH-24-J-6301 coming from opposite direction inexcessive high speed and which was being driven in rash andnegligent manner, gave dash to the motorcycle. Govind suffered fatalinjuries and died on the spot. Crime was registered against tempodriver bearing no. 160 of 2013 for offence punishable under sections279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.
Legal Reasoning
FA-1878-2021-3-3.Wife, children and parents of deceased Govind set up acase before Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased Govind was thesole bread earner. He worked as a Supervisor in Indus TowersLimited and earned salary of Rs.29,562/- per month and therebymaintaining himself and his family. Due to untimely accidental death,they have lost very source and under various heads they set up aclaim of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 4.Above claim was contested by original respondent nos.1and 2, denying the above case.5.Learned tribunal framed issues, appreciated the oral anddocumentary evidence and finally held claimants to be entitled forcompensation to the tune of Rs.29,12,440/- with interest at the rateof 9% per annum. Respondent no.2 was specifically directed to satisfythe award and then to recover the same from respondent no.1.6.Before this court, learned counsel for appellantsclaimants would submit that, there is no serious challenge to theother issues and findings and present appeal is confined only to theaspect of quantum which according to claimants is inadequate andunjust. Learned counsel would submit that, claimants had provedthat deceased Govind worked as Supervisor. His appointment letteras well as salary slips were placed on record to substantiate the FA-1878-2021-4-salary income. He pointed out that, annexures clearly shows thatsalary earned by deceased Govind was over Rs. 26,000/- per monthand he used to regularly gained 10% additional income. The Managerof the company where deceased was working also examined,however, learned tribunal failed to consider such evidence and onlyconsidered salary of Rs.20,000/-. According to him, even calculationsmade by tribunal for compensation are improper. Unnecessarilydeductions of 25% are made for no reason. Further, again deductionsare made considering strength of dependency and even whendeceased being 27 years of age, 50% future prospects ought to havebeen considered as he was below 40 years of age. Learned counselalso expresses dissatisfaction for rate of interest awarded by tribunali.e at the rate of 9%. For all above reasons, compensation sought tobe enhanced by taking into account full salary as per salarycertificate, additional income and by applying correct dependency,then making necessary deductions and to award future prospects byconsidering the age as 27 years.7.In answer to above, learned counsel for insurancecompany would submit that, in fact, tribunal has been liberal ingranting compensation. Compensation awarded is in consonance withquality of evidence. Learned counsel pointed out that, in fact,deceased was a probationer and not a confirmed employee. Therefore, FA-1878-2021-5-according to him, correct computation is done by considering numberof days for which services were rendered. That, documents adducedby claimants itself were relied. Deceased was merely 12th standardpassed. Lastly, he submitted that in absence of evidence about fixsalary, consideration of Rs. 20,000/- per month salary is also ratherexorbitant.8.After hearing the submissions advanced by both sides,admittedly, here, this court is only called upon to interfere only onthe point of quantum of compensation awarded by learned tribunal.9.Re-appreciated the evidence. In trial court claimantsasserted that deceased Govind by rendering service in Indus TowersLimited earned salary of Rs.29,500/-. In support of service, Exh.48which is a service agreement and Exh.49 is the salary certificate areplaced on record and one Shrikant Shinde has been examined, who isalso an employee of above company. Exh.48 clearly shows that deceased Govind was underprobation period and it further appears that deceased joined barely20 days prior to the unfortunate accident. Though taking the aspectof deceased to be on probation and he had worked only for 20 days,aspect of he to be in employment and earning salary cannot bedenied. FA-1878-2021-6-10.Learned tribunal, in paragraph 21, has held thatdeceased was on probation and was not permanent employee andtherefore claimants are not entitled to utilize full benefits ofenumeration and there is need for 25% deduction from salary, has nological foundation. Proper basis for computing compensation is theloss of financial dependency. The salary slip is considered an effectivepiece of evidence to establish the income of deceased. Thoughprobation period may have a bearing on job security, it would notnegate the factum of deceased earning salary during his lifetime.11.Resultantly, taking Exh.49 into account net salaryreceived by deceased is shown to be Rs.20,500/- and claimants havealso adduced evidence of witness Shrikant Shinde, in the consideredopinion of this court, there ought not to have been 25% deductionfrom the above salary. It would be too early and unreasonably topresume that deceased would not have been made permanent, moreparticularly, in the light of nature of beneficial legislation. Therefore,the monthly income is considered as Rs.20,500/- per month.12.In view of the ratio laid down in National InsuranceCompany Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 SCC Online SC 1270and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Decision
FA-1878-2021-7-Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, i.e. 80,000 /- plus 20% (Rs.16,000/-) which comes toRs.96,000/- towards consortium and loss of love and affection.13.In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitledfor following compensation.Sr.No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1.Annual Income (Rs.20,500 x 12 )2,46,000/-2.Future Prospects 50%i.e. 1,23,000 (2,46,000 + 1,23,000) 3,69,000/-3.Less 1/4 deduction towards personalexpenses.(Rs. 3,69,000 – Rs 92,250)2,76,750/-4.Multiplier of 17 (2,76,750 X 17)(Loss of dependency)47,04,750/-5.Loss of consortium and love and affection96,000/-6.Transportation of dead body (as per tribunal)10,000/-7.Funeral Expenses (as per tribunal)10,000/-8.Total compensation to be paid48,20,750/-9.Compensation awarded by Tribunal 29,12,440/-10.Total Enhanced Compensation (i.e. Rs.14,36,746 – 9,22,746)19,08,310/-.In the result, following order is passed :- ORDER(i)Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. (ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 06.05.2019, passed by FA-1878-2021-8-the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Ex-Officio Member, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Latur in M.A.C.P. No.254 of 2013 ismodified.(iii)Respondent no.2 - insurance company to pay enhancedcompensation of Rs.19,08,310/- to claimants within 12 weeks fromtoday along with interest @ 9% 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