Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown
2012 Latest Caselaw 373 Bom

201112FA327.07.odt
                                      1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                                                           
                          NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2007




                                                   
            APPELLANT:
                 Shri Prashant s/o Gyaneshwar Hajare, aged about 33
                 years, r/o Subhash Putla, Nagpur [respondent no.2 -




                                                  
                 owner of vehicle]
                                     VERSUS
            RESPONDENTS:
            1] Narayan s/o Sadashiv Bondre, aged about 60 years



                                         
            2] Smt. Sindhubai w/o Sadashiv Bondre, aged about 59
                 years
                             
                 Both r/o Subhash Putla, Nagpur [Petitioners -
                 claimants]
                            
            3] The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                 Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
                 [Respondent no.1 Insurer]
            ===========================================
             


            Mr. M.N. Ahmed, advocate for the appellant
          



            Miss Monali Pathade, advocate for respondent no.1 & 2
            None for the respondent no.3
            ===========================================
                                 CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 20.11.2012.

ORAL JUDG MENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.649/1999. 2] On 26.3.1999, Vasant, a pillion rider on the

201112FA327.07.odt

motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-31-V-7106, while

proceeding on Nagpur - Bhandara Road, met with an accident. Vasant sustained serious injuries and succumbed

to them. He was unmarried. His parents lodged claim for Rs.2,50,000/-. The tribunal after considering the evidence

brought on record, held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from Prashant - owner of the vehicle. The tribunal considered the income of the deceased and after

applying multiplier of 17 granted total amount of

compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- inclusive of no fault liability

amount. This judgment and award is questioned in this appeal mainly on the ground that the tribunal committed an error by deducting only 1/3rd income towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased, and further committed error

in applying multiplier of 17 without considering the age of the claimants.

3] The point that arises for my consideration is:

What should be the fair and just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to?

4] It was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.1500-1600/-p.m. This is not disputed. Considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried and left behind his aged parents, the deduction ought to have

201112FA327.07.odt

been 50% and not 1/3rd as has been held in case of Smt. Sarla

Verma..vs.. Delhi Transport [2009 4 ALL MR 429]. 5] The second contention is about the choice of the

multiplier. According to Mr. Ahmed having regard to the age of the claimants the multiplier should have been applied and

for that he relied upon the decision in case of Ramesh Singh and another ..vs.. Satbir Singh and another [2008 (2) S.C.C. 667].

6] In Sarla Verma's case it has been held that for the

age group of 26-30 years the multiplier of 17 has to be

applied and it should be chosen having regard to the age of the deceased. This principle was followed in case of P. Somnath and others ..vs.. District Insurance Officer and

others : 2011(3) Mh.L.J. (S.C.)735. In that case the Tribunal

had chosen multiplier of 16 which was reduced to 5 by the High Court having regard to the age of the dependents.

While restoring the view taken by the tribunal their lordships observed:

" In the present case, the claimants had filed

for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The original claim petition had been filed by the mother and brother of the deceased and the deceased was 33 years of age

201112FA327.07.odt

when he died in the accident. For the purpose of

calculating the multiplier, the High Court held that the mother was the real legal representative

and others could not claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased, and accordingly

applied a multiplier of 5, whereas the Tribunal had calculated compensation by considering a multiplier of 16. This Court is of the opinion that

the law as has been laid correctly in Sarla Verma,

a very well considered judgment, is to be

followed.

The reasoning of the High Court is not correct in view of the ratio in Sarla Verma. Following the

same the High Court should have proceeded to

compute the compensation on the age of the deceased" (Emphasis supplied).

In that view of the matter, the tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 17. Hence the compensation to which the claimants are entitled to is thus:

Rs.750/- (loss of dependency after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased) X 12 = 9,000 X 17 = 1,53,000/- + Rs.10,000/- (towards love & affection) and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, total Rs. Rs.1,66,000/-

201112FA327.07.odt

which shall be inclusive of the no-fault liability amount.

7] The appeal succeeds partly. The judgment and award impugned is modified thus:

The claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- inclusive of no fault liability amount with

interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the application, till its realization with proportionate costs throughout.

                                 ig                        JUDGE
            SMP