Bombay High Court
United India Insurance ... vs Sau.Anjanabai Shaligram ... on 22 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
fa380.07+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.380 of 2007
Along with
Cross-Objection No.24 of 2007
United India Insurance Company
Limited, through its Divisional
Manager, Rajasthan Bhavan,
Iind Floor, Old Cotton Market,
Akola ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sau. Anjanabai Shaligram Telgote,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation - Household duties.
2. Shaligram s/o Rajaram Telgote,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation - Service.
3. Ravi s/o Shaligram Telgote,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Education.
4. Anil s/o Shaligram Telgote,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation : Education.
Respondent Nos.1 to 4
all residents of Bhadola,
Tah. and Distt. Buldhana.
5. Kailash s/o Kashinath Dahatonde,
Aged Major,
Occupation - Cultivator,
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:57:26 :::
2
fa380.07+.odt
R/o Karvand, Tah. Chikhali,
Distt. Buldhana.
6. M/s. J.B. Tractors,
Sales & Service,
Akola Road, Khamgaon,
Tah. Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldhana. ... Respondents
Shri S.N. Dhanagare, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 22 nd March, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1. In M.A.C.P. No.143 filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana, has
awarded compensation of Rs.6,18,660/- by its award dated 14-9-2005
payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants jointly and severally
by the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent Nos.5 and,
the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in question respectively,
inclusive of no-fault liability with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till the recovery of the entire
amount. Hence, the Insurance Company is before this Court
challenging the award of the Tribunal.
fa380.07+.odt
2. The accident in question occurred on 17-5-2000 at about
9.30 p.m. on Bhadola-Buldana road near the field of one Anil
Kashinath Bhalerao and within the limits of Buldana Police Station.
There was a collision between the auto-rickshaw bearing registration
No.MCC-2086 and the tractor bearing registration No.MH-2B/TC-42,
which is the offending vehicle. Deceased Gautam Shaligram Telgote
was travelling in the auto-rickshaw and as a result of such accident, he
died. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
preferred by the parents and the brothers of the deceased. The
deceased, aged about 26 years, was bachelor at the time of the
occurrence of the accident.
3. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver of the
tractor was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in
an accident, causing the death of the deceased. The tractor was
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the insurance was
valid on the date of occurrence of the accident. So far as the offending
vehicle, i.e. the tractor, is concerned, the deceased was a third party
and was covered by the "Act Policy" of the offending vehicle. The
deceased was the occupant of the auto-rickshaw and hence there was
fa380.07+.odt
no question of contributory negligence and it was a case of composite
negligence so far as the deceased is concerned.
4. The contention of Shri Dhanagare, the learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company is that neither the driver of the auto
rickshaw nor its owner was made the party-respondent in the claim
petition and the Tribunal should have apportioned the liability while
determining the amount of compensation. The contention cannot be
accepted, for the reason that it was a case of composite negligence and
the deceased was third party, covered by the "Act Policy" of the
offending vehicle, i.e. the tractor.
5. The claimants have filed Cross-Objection No.24 of 2007
claiming enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has held that
the deceased was aged about 26 years and was drawing the gross
salary of Rs.7,835/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted from it the
amount of Rs.2,045/- and the net salary payable to the deceased was
arrived at Rs.5,790/-. Perusal of the salary slip at Exhibit 45 shows
that except deduction of Rs.50/-, the other deductions made under the
head of contribution to provident fund, etc., could not have been
considered for determination of the monthly income of the deceased.
fa380.07+.odt
The Tribunal has committed an error to that extent and the monthly
income of the deceased will have to be determined at Rs.7,785/- after
deducting an amount of Rs.50/- towards tax on water and electricity
charges.
6. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting one-third
amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is not in
dispute that the deceased was bachelor and hence 50% deduction
should have been allowed by the Tribunal on account of personal
expenses. In the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.7,785/-,
the amount of 50% thereof on account of future prospects will have to
be added, which comes to Rs.3,892.50, to arrive at the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.11,677.50. From this, the amount of
50% deduction on account of personal expenses to the tune of
Rs.5,838.75 will have to be deducted. After deduction, the amount
can be worked out to Rs.5,838.75 as monthly income. The annual
income of the deceased would be Rs.70,065/-. The proper multiplier
would be of 17, as against the multiplier of 13, adopted by the
Tribunal, and the dependency can be worked out to Rs.11,91,105/-.
7. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
fa380.07+.odt
to 4/claimants, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
(2013) 15 SCC 603, for the proposition that the parent-claimants
would be entitled to get an amount of Rs.50,000/- each towards love
and affection of the son, and an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of
funeral expenses. Hence, adding Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.11,91,105/-, the
total compensation to which the claimants would be entitled can be
worked out to Rs.12,01,105/-.
8. In view of above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the claimants is partly
allowed. The claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of
Rs.12,01,105/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum thereon
from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeta, w/o
Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 590,
relied upon by Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the claimants, would
not be applicable to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum, for
the reason that the accident in the said case had occurred on
22-3-2011, whereas the accident in the present case had occurred on
fa380.07+.odt
17-5-2000.
The appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent Nos.5
and 6, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, to deposit jointly
and severally the amount of compensation, referred to above, in this
Court within a period of three months, and the claimants are entitled
to withdraw it thereafter.
9. The appeal as well as cross-objection are disposed of in above
terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
