Bombay High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Shobha Rajendra Surana And Ors on 18 October, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 1 fa 3547.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3547 OF 2011
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd.
Through its Legal Manager,
Mr. Rahul Sanap,
Age: 26 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. c/o ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.
Alaknanda, 1st Floor, Adalat Road,
Aurangabad. ... Appellant
1.
Vs.
Smt. Shobha Rajendra Surana,
Age:44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Rajendra @ Rajkumar Manikchand Surana,
Age:49 years, Occ: Vehicle Broker,
3. Kum. Priya Rajendra Surana,
Age: 18 years, Occ: Education,
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are
all R/o 782, Surana Building,
Tophkhana, Ahmednagar No. 1 to 3 Orig. Claimants.
4. Girish Ramraj Pal,
Age: 47years, Occ: Business,
R/o Nilkanth Corner, 1st Floor,
Section 2, Sanpada (E)
Navi Mumbai - 05. ... Respondents
----
Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. R.R. Imape, Advocate for the respondent.
----
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 18-10-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In the present appeal only two grounds are pressed by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company
in challenge to the impugned judgment and award. First is that the
2 1 fa 3547.11.odt
tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier based on the age of the
deceased when it ought to have been based on the age of the
claimants and the second objection is that while determining the
amount of dependancy compensation the tribunal has deducted
only 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses when in the facts
of the present case the amount liable to be deducted was 1/2.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the original claimants
has resisted submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel
appearing for appellant-insurance company. The learned counsel
submitted that, in so far as the application of multiplier by the
tribunal is concerned, the tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier
of 18 based on the age of the deceased. The learned counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Munna Lal Jain and Anr. V/s. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347, in view of the ratio laid down
in the said judgment, there appears no substance in the objection
raised by the insurance company as about the multiplier. As held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court the multiplier based on the age of deceased
only will be applicable for determining the amount of compensation.
3. In so far as the second objection raised by the
insurance company, the learned counsel appearing for the original
claimant was fair enough in submitting that deductions ought to
have been 1/2 of the total income towards the personal expenses of
3 1 fa 3547.11.odt
the deceased in determining the amount of compensation. In view
of the submissions so made the award needs to be modified to the
aforesaid extent.
4. Income of the deceased is held by the tribunal to the
tune of Rs. 36,000/- per year. 1/2 of the said amount will go
towards personal expenses. The amount of dependancy
compensation can be arrived at by applying the multiplier of 18 to
the balance sum of Rs. 18,000/- which comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-.
The tribunal has awarded further sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the
other heads and, thus, the total compensation payable to the
applicants comes to Rs. 3,34,000/-. Save and except the decrease
in the amount of compensation from Rs. 4,42,000/- to Rs.
3,34,000/-, the other part of the impugned award is maintained as
it is.
5. The appeal, thus, stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The respondent in the present appeal i.e. original claimants are
permitted to withdraw the amount as awarded as per the modified
award i.e. Rs. 3,34,000/- with interest thereon as awarded by the
tribunal and the same shall be paid to the claimants by deducting
the amount, if any, already withdrawn by them. The balance
amount shall be refunded to the appellant-insurance company.
(P.R. BORA)
mub JUDGE
