The United Ins Co Ltd Thr ... vs Mrs Sanjanabai Kashinath Patil & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1534 Bom

                                              1                FA NO.983 OF 2005

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                             
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.983 OF 2005




                                                     
               United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
               Through it's Divisional
               Manager and Authorised Representatives
               And Signatory, Jalgaon Divisional




                                                    
               Office, Mansing Market, Opp.Atul
               Dairy, Jalgaon.
                                        ...APPELLANT
                                        (Original Opponent
                                         No.3)




                                            
               VERSUS

      1.
                             
               Smt.Sanjanabai w/o Kashinath Patil,
               Age 43 years, Occupation, Household.
                            
      2.       Smt.Bhagibai w/o Nathu Patil,
               Age 67 years, Occupation: Nil

      3.       Mr.Yatish Kashinath Patil,
               Age 24 years.
      


      4.       Miss Gayatri Kashinath Patil,
   



               Age 18 years.

               All r/o Kudavad, Tal: Shahada,
               District Nandurbar.





      5.       Dhannajy Bhaidas Shimpi,
               Age: Adult, Occupation: Driver,
               R/o Anarad, Tal.Shahada.

      6.       Vijay Raghunath Wadnere,
               Age: Adult, Occupation: Jeep owner,





               R./o. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                     (No.1 to 4 original Claimants.
                     Respondent No.5 to 6 - Orig.
                     opponent Nos. 1 & 2)
                          ...
      Mr.A.B.Gatne, Advocate for the appellant.
      Mr.D.A.Mane, Adv., h/f Mr.Milind Patil, Adv., for 
      respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.
      Adv.S.D.Tambat-Dhumal for respondent nos.5 & 6.




    ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016                     ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:28:18 :::
                                                   2                   FA NO.983 OF 2005




                                                                                    
                                                            
                                    CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

DATE : April 15th, 2016 ***

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company and the learned Counsel appearing for the Original

claimants.

2. The impugned award is objected only to the extent

of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Shri

A.B.Gatne, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant

Insurance Company, submitted that two gross mistakes are

committed by the Tribunal while determining the amount of

compensation. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal

has erred in adding hundred per cent of the amount of the

wages in the actual wages being drawn by the deceased

towards the future prospects. Learned Counsel invited my

attention to paragraph No.11 of the judgment and submitted

that the Tribunal has observed that the income of the deceased

would have been doubled by the time of his attaining the age of

superannuation. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of

3 FA NO.983 OF 2005

the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of

Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Anr. 2009(5), Mh.L.J. 775 for age group of 37 to 40, if

at all any increase in the wages is to be taken into account, that

should be at the rate of 50 per cent, and not beyond that.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has also

erred in applying multiplier of 16. According to the learned

Counsel, having regard to the age of the deceased, the

appropriate multiplier would be of 15. Learned Counsel,

therefore, submitted that on these two counts, the impugned

award needs to be modified.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the original

claimants brought to my notice that though the Tribunal might

have observed that the salary income of the deceased would

have been doubled till he attains age of superannuation, while

actually calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has held the

income to the tune of Rs.11,250/- and has rightly assessed the

compensation.

4. In so far as application of multiplier is concerned,

learned Counsel was fair enough to submit that in view of

Sarla Verma's judgment (cited supra), the multiplier of 15

4 FA NO.983 OF 2005

must have been applied by the Tribunal.

5. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment.

In paragraph no.11 itself, the Tribunal has provided all

particulars as to how it has assessed the amount of

compensation. Admittedly, the salary of deceased Kashinath

was Rs.7514/- per month. There is further no dispute that in

view of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case (cited supra),

towards future prospects, having regard to the age of the

deceased, 50 per cent amount was liable to be added for

assessing just and fair compensation. Thus, if the income of

the deceased is held to the tune of Rs.7500/-, amount of

Rs.3750/- was liable to be added in the aforesaid salary income

which comes to Rs.11,250/-. Learned Tribunal has rightly

assessed the compensation by holding the income of the

deceased to the tune of Rs.11,250/-. Thus, there appears no

substance in the objection raised on behalf of the Insurance

Company that the Tribunal erred in giving the claimants

hundred per cent rise in the salary income under the head of

future prospects. I see no error on the part of the Tribunal in

arriving at the conclusion that the amount of compensation was

to be assessed by holding the salary income of the deceased to

the tune of Rs.11,250/-,

5 FA NO.983 OF 2005

6. However, in so far as application of multiplier is

concerned, the Tribunal has certainly committed a mistake in

applying multiplier of 16. The Tribunal, after having deducted

one third amount of the total income of the deceased towards

his personal expenses has held the annual income of

Rs.89, 604/- prima facie available with the deceased to be

spent by him on his dependents and has multiplied the same

by 16, has thus determined the compensation to the tune of

Rs.14,33,664/- (89,604 x 16 = 14,33,664). As stated earlier,

the compensation needs to be determined by applying the

multiplier of 15. By applying the said multiplier, the amount

of compensation comes to Rs.13,44,060/- (89,604 x 15 =

13,44,060).

7. In so far as the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal of Rs.18,000/- under other heads, I do not see any

reason to cause any interference in the amount so granted by

the Tribunal. The original claimants are thus entitled for total

compensation of Rs.13, 62, 060/- jointly or severally from the

driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

8. The Insurance Company has deposited the entire

6 FA NO.983 OF 2005

amount under the impugned award with interest accrued

thereon till date. Now, the original minor claimants have

become major. Therefore, there seems no reason for directing

the amount of compensation of their share to be deposited in

Fixed Deposit Receipts. However, apportionment needs to be

made of the compensation so determined amongst the

claimants. According to me, it would be appropriate to award

40 per cent of the total amount of compensation to original

claimant no.1 Smt. Sanjanabai, 20 per cent each to original

claimant nos. 2, 3 and 4. Accordingly, the original claimants

are permitted to withdraw the amounts of their share along

with interest accrued thereon. The balance amount be paid to

the Insurance Company along with interest.

9. In view of the discussion made above, the

impugned award thus needs to be modified only upto the

aforesaid extent. It be modified accordingly. The appeal

stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending Civil Applications

if any stand disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/983-05fa