Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd ... vs Savita Tatyarao Bhosale And Ors on 12 April, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
fa184.02
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2002
WITH CA/1534/2002 IN FA/184/2002
1. United India Insurance Co Ltd. Chenni
Latur, Branch At and District Latur
Through its Divisional manager
authorized representative and
signatory
Ahmednagar Division,
Kisan Kranti Building,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Mohammad Muquemuddin Mohammad
Allemuddin Baig, Age 45 years,
Occ. Business,
R/o. H. No. 11-1-131, Agapur,
Hyderabad ...Appellants
versus
1. Smt. Savita Tatyarao Bhosale,
Age 42 years, Occ. Household
2. Smt. Meenakshi Tatyarao Bhosale,
Age 22 years, Occ. Education
3. Satish Tatyarao Bhosale,
Age 20 years, Occ. Education
4. Dnyanendra Tatyarao Bhosale,
Age 18 years, Occ. Education
All R/o. Kavha Road, Gulmarket,
Latur, District Latur
5. Ashokkumar Nagsheeti Appa
Age 42 years, Occ. Truck Driver
R/o. Malikarjun Street,
Basavkallyan, District Bidar ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. A B Gatne
Advocate for Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. L.B. Palod
.....
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:02:57 :::
fa184.02
-2-
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 12th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.7.2001
passed by the learned Chairman, M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P.
No. 1219 of 1994, the original opponent Nos. 3 and 4 prefer this
appeal.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:-
a) On 3.7.1994, at about 3.40 p.m. near village Guha on
Rahuri-Shirdi road, deceased Tatyarao alongwith two other
persons were proceeding in a car. On the way, one truck
bearing registration No. ABT 2927 came from opposite
direction in high speed and gave a dash to the car, by coming
on wrong side of road. In consequence of which, all three
including the driver, were seriously injured in the accident.
Deceased Tatyarao died on the spot. Legal representatives of
deceased Tatyarao filed claim petition bearing M.A.C. No.
1219 of 1994 against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 i.e. owner, driver
and insurer of the truck involved in the accident and in the
alternate also claimed compensation from owner, insurer and
drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Learned
fa184.02
Chairman, M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar, by impugned judgment and
award dated 10.7.2001 allowed the claim petition with costs
and thereby directed respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to pay
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- including no fault liability to the
claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of
application till realization of amount.
b. Being aggrieved by the same, the original respondent
Nos.3 and 4 preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum. So
far as the finding recorded by the tribunal holding truck driver
responsible for the accident alone is concerned, the same is
not challenged by way of this appeal. Thus, the appeal is
preferred against quantum only.
3. Learned counsel of the appellants submits that the Tribunal
has considered the income of deceased Tatyarao erroneously. Even
though, as contended by the claimants, deceased Tatyarao was
getting salaried income, the salary certificate is not produced on
record and merely the salary details are given on letter pad. Learned
counsel submits that the Tribunal has considered the loss of
agriculture income to the tune of Rs.2,500/- p.m. Learned counsel
further submits that even after accidental death of deceased
Tatyarao, corpus of agriculture land remained as it is and the major
fa184.02
sons of deceased Tatyarao i.e. claimant Nos. 3 and 4 can cultivate
the land and in that event, there is no loss in the agriculture income
as such. Learned counsel, in the alternate, submits that at the most
the loss towards supervision charges can only be considered.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents-original claimants
submits that salary certificates of deceased Tatyarao are placed on
record, the same are marked at Exh.40 and 43 and details of salary
are mentioned in salary certificate Exh. 40. Learned counsel submits
that deceased Tatyarao was getting gross salary of Rs.8630/- and
after deducting professional tax and income tax, he was getting
salary of Rs.8060/- p.m. at the time of his accidental death. Learned
counsel submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income
from agriculture source and accordingly added Rs.2500/- p.m. in the
income of deceased Tatyarao. Learned counsel submits that the
Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier 10 instead of 11. Learned
counsel submits that the Tribunal has not at all awarded any
compensation under non pecuniary heads.
5. It appears from the contents of salary certificate Exh.40 that
deceased Tatyarao was getting gross salary of Rs.8630/- p.m. and if
the amount under the heads of professional tax and income tax are
deducted, then the salary certificate shows that the deceased
fa184.02
Tatyarao was getting Rs.8060/- p.m. So far as the agriculture
income is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has
rightly pointed out that the corpus of land remained as it is even after
accidental death of deceased Tatyarao and his major sons are quite
competent enough to cultivate the land. In that event, there can be
hardly any loss for the agriculture income. However, the claimant
Nos. 3 and 4 are young boys, taking education at the time of death of
deceased Tatyarao. Considering their inexperience, loss of Rs.500/-
p.m. towards supervision charges would be appropriate. In view of
this, the monthly salaried income is Rs.8060/- and Rs.500/- on
account of loss of supervision charges, then the loss of
dependency/income comes to Rs.8560/-. Since respondent Nos. 2,
3, and 4 are major children, I do not find any fault in the order passed
by the Tribunal considering 1/3rd deduction on account of personal
expenses of deceased Tatyarao. After deducting 1/3rd amount from
income of deceased Tatyarao towards his personal expenses, his
monthly income comes to Rs.5707/-, which corresponds to
Rs.68,484/- per year. Deceased Tatyarao was 52 years old at the
time of accidental death and the same is not seriously disputed. Even
though the appeal is preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e.
insured and owner of the vehicle-truck involved in the accident, it
appears that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation in
accordance with law. The Tribunal is duty bound to award just and
fa184.02
reasonable compensation in accordance with law. In the case in
hand, the Tribunal has not considered the salaried income of
deceased Tatyarao as per salary certificate Exh.40. Further more,
the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under non
pecuniary heads. In my considered opinion, for this purpose, no
cross objection is required.
6. In view of this, appropriate multiplier would be 11 instead of 10.
The Tribunal has committed mistake in applying multiplier and also
calculating the compensation amount. The Tribunal has also
committed mistake in considering the loss of agriculture income to
the extent of Rs.2500/- p.m. The loss of supervision charges
towards agriculture land can be considered only. Thus, applying the
multiplier 11, total loss of dependency/income comes to
Rs.7,53,324/-.
7. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under non
pecuniary heads. The claimant No.1 was 42 years old at the time of
accidental death of her husband Tatyarao. Thus, she is entitled for
amount of Rs.15,000/- as loss of consortium. The claimants are
entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. The claimant Nos. 2, 3 and
4 are entitled for Rs.10,000/- each for love and affection. The
claimants are also entitled for Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. In
fa184.02
view of this, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to
be re-calculated. Thus, the break up of compensation, which can be
broadly categorized, is as under:-
i) Loss of income/dependency Rs. 7,53,324.00
ii) Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000.00
iii) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00
iv) Loss of love and affection
ig Rs. 30,000.00
for claimant nos. 2 to 4
(Rs.10,000/- each)
v) Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00
----------------------
Rs. 8,13,324.00
=============
8. The claimants are thus entitled for Rs.8,13,324.00 (Rupees
eight lacs thirteen thousand three hundred twenty four only). Hence,
I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. The judgment and award dated 10.7.2001 passed by the
Chairman, M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 1219 of
1994 is modified in the following manner;-
The opponent Nos. 3 to 5 shall pay compensation of
fa184.02
Rs.8,13,324.00 (Rupees eight lacs thirteen thousand three
hundred twenty four only) inclusive of no fault liability to the
claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
application till realization of amount.
II. Rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
stands confirmed.
III.
Award be drawn up in tune with the above modification.
IV. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
V. Civil application No. 1534 of 2002 is also disposed of.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
