J-fa769.06.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.769 OF 2006
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
through it's Divisional Manager,
DO-II, Udhyam Building, West High Court Road,
Dharampeth, Nagpur. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Smt. Gayatridevi Vinayak Shukla,
Aged 54 years,
Occupation : Household.
2. Dhiraj s/o. Vinayak Shukla,
Aged 25 years,
Occupation : Not known.
3. Sudhir s/o. Vinayak Shukla,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation : Not known.
All R/o. C/o. Shyam s/o. Jogeshwari Shukla,
Behind Yeshwant Statdium, Near Udasi
Ashram, Dhantoli, Nagpur.
4. Modan Singh s/o. Bhansingh,
Dismissed against aged major,
respondent No.4.
Occupation : Owner of truck
bearing Regn. No.MP-23/DA-8733,
R/o. Tatibandh, Raipur.
(Madhya Pradesh). : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri A.J. Pophaly, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
rd DATE : 23 NOVEMBER, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 :::
J-fa769.06.odt 2/10
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Common judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2006, rendered in three claim petitions is questioned in the present appeal to the extent of the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in the Claim Petition being Claim Petition No.533/2002 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. On 17th March, 2002, deceased Niraj and two others were returning to Nagpur by car bearing No.MH-31-AG-2244, after having gone to the farm of one Shri Dhawad. When the car reached at a spot on the road situated near Wadi village District Nagpur, one truck bearing registration No.MP-23-DA- 8733 approaching from the opposite direction collided head on against the car. All the three persons traveling in the car including deceased Niraj, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Wadi Police Station registered offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending truck. Three separate claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased persons. Claim Petition No.533/2002, from which the present appeal arises, was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "MV Act") for the unfortunate loss of deceased Niraj, son of respondent No.1 and brother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the time of accident, deceased Niraj was 23 years of age. He was earning ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 ::: J-fa769.06.odt 3/10 about Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month by working as Cook as well as Watchman. The claim petition was filed against the appellant insurer of the offending truck and the owner of the offending truck who is respondent No.3 in the present appeal. The respondent No.4 was proceeded against exparte while appellant resisted the claim petition. It was contended by the appellant that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the car driver and alternately it was submitted that there was contributory negligence in causing of the accident on the part of drivers of both the vehicles. It was also submitted that the claim petition not having been filed against the insurer and the owner of the car bearing registration No.MH-31-AG-2244 was bad for non-joining of necessary parties. On merits of the case, the defences so taken by the insurance company were not accepted by the Tribunal and allowing the claim petition partly, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and it was made payable jointly and severally by the appellant and respondent No.4, the insurer and owner of the offending truck respectively. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petition is already dismissed against the respondent No.4, owner of the offending truck. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 :::
J-fa769.06.odt 4/10
4. Now, the points which arise for my determination are :
i) Whether the petition was bad for non-joinder of parties ?
ii) Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper ?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the owner and insurer of another vehicle, the car involved in the accident were necessary parties and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed and in any case, the insurer and the owner i.e. appellant and respondent No.4 could not have been fastened with entire liability regarding payment of compensation determined by the Tribunal and that it ought to have been reduced to 50% in proportion to the percentage of composite negligence already determined by the Tribunal. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that this being a case of composite negligence, it was the choice of the claimants to join all the parties compositely negligent or only some of the parties taking part in the composite negligence and that is the settled law. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it is required to be enhanced so as to make it a just and reasonable compensation and the claim in this regard can be even orally made by the claimants without filing any appeal or cross-objection.
6. So far as the law relating to necessary parties guilty of composite negligence is concerned, I must say that it is now well settled. ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 :::
J-fa769.06.odt 5/10 It is the choice of the claimants to join all or any of them in petitions claiming compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Tribunal has relied upon the law laid down in the case of Sitaram Prabhu Tele and another vs. Rajabai Vilas Patil and others, reported in 2001(2) TAC 475 Bom. and also in the case of Satpalsingh Dharamsingh Chowdhary and another vs. Ashok g. Raut and others, reported in 2005(2) TAC 199 (Bom.), which follows the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 1998 ACJ 342(SC) and rightly so. I, therefore, find no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and finds substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this regard. The first point is answered as in the negative.
7. Now, it is well settled that even if the appeal or cross-objection has not been filed by the claimants still, the claimants can make a claim for enhanced compensation while defending their position in the appeal filed against them by the insurance company or the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the oral claim submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for enhancement of the compensation would have to be considered in the present appeal on its own merits and now it shall be considered so in the following paragraphs.
8. The evidence of PW 2 Rajesh, the claimant's witness is quite ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 ::: J-fa769.06.odt 6/10 clear and there are hardly any circumstances appearing in his entire evidence to entertain any doubt about the assertions made by him. Accepting his evidence, I find that deceased Niraj used to work with PW 2, Rajesh, a Cook by profession and render his assistance in performing his job as a Cook as and when required. His evidence further shows that PW 2, Rajesh, used to pay Rs.300/- to deceased Niraj for one day's work and on an average, deceased Niraj used to work with him for at least about 6 to 7 days in a month. In fact, at the time when the accident occurred, deceased Niraj was returning home after performing his job as assistant to the cook, at village Gondkhairi. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal determined the average monthly income of the deceased Niraj as Rs.2,000/-. I do not think that any error has been committed in making such a determination by the Tribunal. The age of the deceased, as seen from the evidence available on record, was 23 years at the time of death and therefore, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 appropriate multiplier would be of '18' and as he was a bachelor, as per this case only, one half deduction on account of personal expenses from the income of the deceased would have to be made. However, the Tribunal has committed an error on both these counts. It has selected multiplier of '17' instead of '18' and deducted 1/3rd amount from the monthly income for personal expenses, which should have been not less than one half of the income earned. The ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 ::: J-fa769.06.odt 7/10 Tribunal has given Rs.2,500/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses as non-pecuniary damages which now as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , delivered in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 , decided on 31 st October, 2017.
should be of Rs.15,000/- each. Thus, calculated, the total compensation payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would be as under :
Annual Income - (Rs.2000x12 = Rs.24,000/-)
½ deduction
for personal expenses - (24,000-12,000=12,000)
Appropriate multiplier as per
Sarla Verma's case '18'
for 23 years of age. : 12,000 x 18
A) Total loss of dependency : Rs.96,000/-
B) Non-pecuniary damages : Rs.30,000/-
i) Loss of Estate (Rs.15,000/-)
ii) Funeral Expenses (Rs.15,000/-)
------------------
Total (A) + (B) = Rs.1,26,000/-
=======
9. So, I find that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-.
10. However, this does not mean that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 or the claimants are not entitled to receive any amount of compensation from the owner and insurer of the other vehicle which is a car involved in the present accident, though that would be as per their choice and in accordance with law. This is because of the fact that in two other ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 ::: J-fa769.06.odt 8/10 connected claim petitions, Tribunal has already recorded a finding that even the owner and insurer of the car have their liability to pay compensation in the present case to the claimants in proportion to the percentage of negligence, which was of 50% for the car and 50% for the truck.
11. The impugned judgment and order discloses that this was a case of composite negligence and the Tribunal has already fixed the percentage of composite negligence on the part of the driver and owner of each of the two vehicles on 50 x 50 basis and rightly so. Relying on this finding, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability of the appellant to pay compensation be reduced to 50% of the amount awarded as compensation under this order. I am not inclined to accept the argument relating to reduction of the liability in proportion to the percentage of composite negligence rightly fixed by the Tribunal for the reason that this case being of composite negligence, the claimants, at their choice, can seek compensation from all or any of the persons held liable to pay compensation on account of composite negligence. If the appellant desires to recover something which it feels to be in excess of its percentage of liability, it would have to do so by resorting to appropriate remedy, which may be available in law and liberty in that regard can be granted. So, the compensation so awarded hereunder would be jointly and severally payable by the appellant and the respondent No.4 together with interest at the same rate and for the same period as granted by the ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 ::: J-fa769.06.odt 9/10 Tribunal. The second point is answered accordingly.
12. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and the oral challenge of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 deserves to be partly allowed.
13. The appeal stands dismissed.
14. The oral challenge raised by the claimants on the question of inadequacy of compensation is partly allowed and accordingly, it is directed that the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-, inclusive of no fault liability amount together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization.
15. It is directed that this compensation, in the present case shall be payable in its entirety, jointly and severally, by the owner and insurer of the offending truck i.e. respondent No.4 and the appellant respectively, notwithstanding the fact that the claimants had a right, in principle, to receive the compensation also from the owner and insurer of the other vehicle i.e. car involved in the accident.
16. The appellant shall be at liberty to recover 50% of the amount of compensation from the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.MH-31-AG-2244 involved in the accident by instituting appropriate proceeding, in view of crystallization of extent of its liability made under this order.
17. Additional Court fees, if not paid, be paid in eight weeks. ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 :::
J-fa769.06.odt 10/10
18. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in the above terms.
19. Parties to bear their own costs.
20. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 01:01:07 :::