Bombay High Court
The Divisional Office, The United ... vs Smt Pramila Raman Ghatule And Ors on 9 June, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
fa-1309.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2013
The Divisional Office ]
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
Divisional Office ]
Janata Shopping Centre, Navi Peth, Solapur ]..... Appellant.
Versus
1] Smt. Pramila Raman Ghatule ]
Age 47 years, Occupation Household ]
ig ]
2] Nagesh Raman Ghatule ]
Age - 25 years, Occupation - Education ]
]
3] Vivek Raman Ghatule ]
Age 20 years, Occupation Education ]
]
All resident of Village - Angar, Taluka - Mohol ]
District Solapur ]
]
4] M/s. Kargo Wings (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. ]
1/603/E, Near Mahaveer Hospital ]
Uriandy Puttur, D K Karnataka ]..... Respondents.
Ms.Pooja Joshi i/by Mr. A A Joshi for the Appellant.
Mr. R S Alange fo the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 09th June 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties
heard forthwith.
lgc 1 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
2 The above First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 09/01/2013 passed by the learned Additional Ex-Officio Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur by which order the application filed by the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be partly allowed, and the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 were held to be entitled to get total compensation of Rs.9,12,000/-
jointly and severally from the Appellant and the Respondent No.4 herein i.e.
the original Opponent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the original Applicants
are the widow and sons of the deceased one Raman Ghatule who met with an
accident which took place on 20/07/2007 in which accident he expired. It
seems that the said Raman Ghatule had been to Phaltan for taking Darshan of
the Palanquin of Sant Shri Dnyaneshwar Mauli on 18/07/2007. Thereafter on
the morning of 20/07/2007 the said Raman Ghatule along with others from
his village started returning back to their village Angar in a jeep bearing
registration No.MH-13/R-8783. The said jeep was proceeding towards the
village Angar along the Pune Solapur road when at about 4.35 am on
20/07/2007 it met with an accident with car container truck bearing
registration No.KA-21/6255 which came from the opposite side. Owing to the
impact which the car container truck gave to the jeep in which the deceased
Raman Ghatule was travelling, the said jeep got tossed and fell in the ditch by
the said of the road and sustained heavy damage in the said accident. The said
lgc 2 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
Raman Ghatule sustained fatal injuries and died within short time after the
accident due to the accidental injuries. An FIR came to be registered against
the driver of the car container truck.
4 Thereafter the Applicants i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein
filed application i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.101 of 2009 in the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur. It was the case of the Applicants i.e.
the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein that the deceased was involved in
agricultural operations and that at the same time he was doing milk business
and the income of the deceased from both the agricultural operations and milk
business was more than Rs.17000/- per month. It was the case of the
Applicants that on account of the death of Raman Ghatule, who was the sole
earning member of the family, the Applicants have suffered irreparable loss and
they have lost their shelter, love and affection. The Applicants therefore
claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the said Claim Petition.
5 The Appellant herein who was the Opponent No.2 in the said
Claim Petition denied the contentions of the Applicants. It was denied that the
car container truck bearing No.KA-21/6255 was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner due to which the driver of the said vehicle lost his control
and gave a dash to the jeep by entering on the wrong side of the road. The
Opponent No.2 thereby denied its liability to pay any compensation.
lgc 3 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
6 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues
amongst which were the issue relating to, whether the death of the said Raman
Ghatule was caused on account of accident dated 20/07/2007 between the
container truck No.KA-21/6255 and jeep No.MH-13/R-8783; whether the
accident was cause due to rash and negligent driving of the container truck
and whether the Applicants are entitled to the compensation and to what
extent.
7 In support of their assertion that the said Raman Ghatule was
having agricultural income as well as income from milk business, the
Applicants examined as many as 5 witnesses. The Applicants have examined
one Satyawan Gund (PW 2), Rangnath Sarak (PW3), Nagnath Nakate (PW 4)
and Pandurang Nagtilak (PW 5). In the context of the challenge raised in the
above First Appeal viz. the quantum of compensation awarded, it would be
relevant to briefly refer to the evidence of the said witnesses.
In so far as PW 2 - Satyawan Gund is concerned, it has come in his
evidence that the deceased used to sell milk to Shankar Sahakari Dugh
Vyasayeek Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol. It has further come in his evidence that
the deceased used to deposit 15 to 16 liters of milk every day for which he was
paid. The witness produced extracts of payment from 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007
lgc 4 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
which disclose that the said deceased Raman Ghatule was paid Rs.16000/- to
Rs.17000/- during the aforesaid three months. It has also come in his evidence
that after 31.3.2007 milk was not supplied by the deceased Raman.
In so far as the evidence of Rangnath Sarak (PW 3) is concerned,
it has come in his evidence that he is working in Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti
since 2001 as a Secretary and that the deceased Raman had purchased one
Jersey cow from Yeshwant Mali for consideration of Rs.20,000/-.
In so far as evidence of Nagnath Nakhate (PW 4) is concerned, it
has come in his evidence that he is Bhusar Merchant i.e. grocery shop
merchant. It has come in his evidence that he has purchased Jawar and Toor
from deceased Raman Ghatule and he had paid Rs.68,504/- and Rs.15,587/-
to deceased Raman in respect of which receipts were produced at Exhibits 41
and 42. It has also come in his evidence that he does not have the personal
knowledge of the said transaction. However, this witness denied the
suggestion that no grains were purchased from deceased Raman Ghatule nor
any amount paid to him.
In so far as the evidence of Pandurang Nagtilak (PW 5) is
concerned, it has come in his evidence that he is the manager in Yeshshree
Trading Company and deceased Raman Ghatule sold Jawar and Gram on
lgc 5 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
8.5.2007 worth Rs.41,260/-. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased
Raman had not sold grains and that they have not paid any amount to him.
8 The Opponent No.1 i.e. the Respondent No.4 herein was duly
served but did not appear before the Tribunal. Accordingly ex-parte order was
passed by the Tribunal against the Opponent No.1.
9 The Opponent No.2 i.e.. the Appellant Insurance Company filed its
Written Statement in the Claim Petition but did not adduce any oral evidence.
10 The Trial Court considered the evidence which was adduced on
behalf of the Claimants and answered the issues framed by it against the
Appellant i.e. the Insurance Company. The Trial Court also referred to the fact
that Exhibits 41 and 42 do not bear the name of the deceased. The Trial Court
in the said context observed that it may be that the farmers do not check while
taking the receipts whether their names have been mentioned or not. The Trial
Court has further observed that ignorance of the farmers cannot absolve the
Insurance Company from its liability. The Trial Court was of the view that the
receipts for the whole year can be considered for computing the income of the
deceased. The Trial court has adverted to the fact that deceased Raman was
having agricultural land to the extent of 5 H-86 R and therefore the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased from agricultural land
lgc 6 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
and milk business would be Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the deceased Raman
was 52 years of age when he died, the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 11
and by deducting an amount of 40,000/- as personal expenses from the yearly
income of Rs.1,20,000/- and by applying the multiplier calculated the amount
on account of loss of future earning in the sum of Rs.8,80,000/-. The Trial
Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the Applicant No.1 i.e. the widow towards
consortium and also awarded Rs.10,000/- each to the Applicant Nos.2 and 3,
who are the sons of the deceased Raman Ghatule, for the loss of love and
affection. The Trial Court has also awarded funeral expenses in the sum of
Rs.2000/-. The total compensation therefore arrived at is Rs.9,12,000/- with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the Petition till realization. As
indicated above it is the said judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur, which is taken exception to by
way of the above First Appeal.
11 On behalf of the Appellant - Insurance Company the principal
contention urged was that there was no evidence on record to justify the
amount of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income which was arrived at by the
Tribunal of the deceased Raman Ghatule from agriculture as well as milk
business. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that
the evidence of the witnesses of the Claimants does not substantiate the case of
the Applicants - Respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the deceased Raman Ghatule was
lgc 7 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
doing business in milk and was also earning from agriculture. The learned
counsel for the Appellant sought to draw this Court's attention to the
statements which have come in the evidence of the witnesses which evidence
has been referred to herein above. It was therefore the submission of the
learned counsel for the Appellant that the amount of Rs.8,80,000/- arrived at
by the Tribunal for the loss of future income was excessive.
12 Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 Shri Alange would submit that in fact the compensation awarded by the
Trial Court was on the lower side considering the fact that meagre amounts
have been awarded for the loss of consortium, for the loss of love and affection
and even for the funeral expenses. The learned counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported
in 2015 ACJ 598 in the matter of Neeta and others v/s. Divisional Manager,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Relying upon the said
judgment it was the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 that the Tribunal was right in computing the loss of future income
on the basis of the income which it had arrived at on the basis of the evidence
on record.
13 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have
considered the rival contentions. The question that is posed is whether the
lgc 8 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
amount computed on account of loss of future income can be said to be
excessive. In the said context it is required to be noted that there is evidence
on record to indicate that the deceased Raman Ghatule had purchased a Jersey
cow and was supplying milk to the Co-operative Milk Society. It has also come
on record that the said deceased Raman Ghatule was holding agricultural land
to the extent of 5H - 86 R. The income from agriculture was sought to be
brought on record through the evidence of PW No.4 and PW No.5. The income
from milk business was also sought to be substantiated through the evidence of
PW No.2 and PW No.3. Though the learned counsel for the Appellant -
Insurance Company sought to make dents in the evidence of the said
witnesses, if one considers the evidence as a whole, then the finding arrived at
by the Tribunal that the income of the deceased Raman Ghatule from
agriculture as well as milk business could be Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be
said to be excessive or extravagant. It is also required to be noted that the
Tribunal in view of the fact that no evidence had come on record to show that
milk was supplied after 31/03/2007 had pegged the income from the milk
business at Rs.1000/- per month and the rest of the income was from
agriculture.
14 Now coming to the judgment of the Apex Court in Neeta's case
(supra), in the said judgment the Apex Court held that the claimants would be
entitled to an amount on account of loss of future income. The Apex Court has
lgc 9 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
observed in the said case that in the case of private employment, the future
prospects can be taken into consideration to determine the loss of dependency.
The Apex Court in the said case had awarded the following sums which are
reflected in paragraph 12 of its judgment :-
Sl. Heads Claimants of Claimants of
No. Kallappa Vijay
1 Loss of dependency Rs.17,28,000/- Rs.17,28,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-
(Children)
4 Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-
(parents)
5 Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
6 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
No doubt in the said case the deceased were younger in age, however what
would change is the application of the multiplier. In the instant case, the
Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 whereas in the case before the Apex
Court the multiplier of 16 was applied as the deceased were below age of 50
years (i.e. both the deceased were about 33 years of age). In the light of the
amounts which are awarded by the Apex Court in Neeta's case whilst
modifying the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the sums
awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case cannot be said to be excessive or
on the higher side. In fact on account of loss of consortium or on account of
loss of love and affection to the children only Rs.10,000/- have been awarded
whereas the Apex Court in the said case awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
lgc 10 of 11
fa-1309.13.doc
15 Hence taking an over all view of the matter the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be such that requires to be
interfered with by this Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction. Hence there is no
merit in the above Appeal which to accordingly stand dismissed.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
lgc 11 of 11
