1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 53 of 2010
Appellant : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pattiwar
Buildingm, M. G. Road, Chandrapur,
through its Regional Office, S. K. Tower,
Nelson Square, Chindwara Road, Nagpur
Versus
Respondents: 1) Smt Suman Waman Kumare, aged about
57 years, Occ: Household work
2) Ku Vidya Waman Kumare, aged about
26 years,
3) Yunus Khan Uusuf Khan, aged about 40
years, Occ: Business, resident of Chandrapur
4) Sayyad Vasim Sayyad Latif, aged about 30
years, resident of Chandrapur
5) Sk. Firoz Sk. Pyaru, aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Driver, resident of Chandrapur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. W. Paunikar, Advocate for appellant Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Respondents 3 to 5 are served Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 21st November 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:18:09 ::: 2 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred on a short question of law arising from the impugned judgment and order and it relates to the basis of selection of multiplier.
2. Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by mother and sister of deceased Anil Kumre who died in a vehicular accident that took place on 18.12.2001. According to the original claimants (respondents no. 1 and 2), the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of one vehicle of TATA make bearing registration No. MH-34-F-3526. At the time of accident, which took place at about 04.00 pm on Chichpalli-Mul Road between Ajaypur- Chichpalli villages, District Chandrapur, Anil was standing on the left side of the road along with motor-cycle owned by respondent no. 5 bearing registration No. MH-34-J/779 when dash was given to him by Tata Sumo jeep. Anil Kumre died of the injuries that he sustained in this accident.
3. The claim petition which was filed against the appellant, the insurer of the Tata vehicle; driver and owner of the Tata vehicle and owner of motor-cycle who are respondents no. 3 to 5 in this appeal, was resisted only by the appellant. On merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the insurer, owner and driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle were liable to pay compensation and directed them to pay Rs. 7,92,756/- on that count ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:18:09 ::: 3 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Owner of motor-cycle (respondent no. 5) was, however, exonerated. This judgment and order rendered in MACP No. 65 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur on 29 th July 2009 is assailed by the appellant-insurer in this appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the original claimants. Nobody appears on behalf of remaining respondents.
5. In support of his contention that age of the parent i.e. respondent no. 1 ought to have been considered while selecting appropriate multiplier, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ramrao Lala Borse & ors reported in 2016 (6) ALL MR 89 wherein it is held that in cases where the deceased was young and his parents are aged, age of the parents should form the basis for selection of multiplier. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, however, submits that appropriate orders be passed.
6. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramrao Lala Borse (supra) would have to be taken as impliedly overruled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & ors rendered in SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 on 31 st October 2017. In this case, it has ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:18:09 ::: 4 been held that age of the deceased shall form the basis for selection of multiplier. Therefore, the issue is now no longer res integra and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the multiplier by taking age of the deceased as its basis, would have to be confirmed and it is confirmed accordingly. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant made in this regard is rejected.
7. The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant that deceased being a bachelor at the time of his death, 50% amount ought to have been deducted, I find that there is substance in this argument. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 concedes to the law settled in this regard. Therefore, deduction of 50% of the amount on account of total loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal would have to be made.
8. On going through the impugned judgment and order, I find that one more modification must be there in this case. The Tribunal has granted amount of Rs. 4500/- under two heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. This amount should have been Rs. 30,000/- as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which now I grant to respondents no. 1 and
2.
9. In view of the above, I find that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and order. Respondents no. 1 and 2 will be entitled to receive compensation as ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:18:09 ::: 5 under:
Total loss of dependency after deducting 50% of the amount on account of personal expenses (Rs. 2898 x 12 x 17) .. Rs. 5,91,192/- Funeral expenses .. Rs. 30,000/- Total compensation .. Rs. 6,21,192/-
It is declared that the claimants (respondents no. 1 and 2) are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 6,21,192/- from the appellant and respondents no. 3 and 4 jointly and severally together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in these terms and appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 01:18:09 :::