Bombay High Court
Suman Narendra Rathod And Ors vs Senior Divisional Manager Lic ... on 30 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 26 fa 302.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2000
1. Suman w/o Narendra Rathod,
Age 40 yrs, Occ: Household,
R/o Subhash Chowk, Parli
Vaijnath, District. Beed.
2. Prafulla s/o Narendra Rathod,
Age 14 yrs, Minor u/g of his
mother Appellant no.1.
3.
Priyanka s/o Narendra Rathod,
Age 11 yrs, Minor u/g of his
mother Appellant no.1. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad.
2. Shivajirao Laxmanrao Vibhute,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service as
Branch Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India,
Ambajogai, District Beed.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Divisonal
Manager, Aurangabad. ... Respondents
----
Mr. S.S. Dargad, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. A.J. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 30-09-2016.
2 26 fa 302.00.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal seeking
enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to them by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Beed in M.A.C.P. No. 65 of
1993 decided on 22/09/1999. The appellants had filed the
aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation on account of the
death of Narendra Rathod, being his legal heirs, who died in a
vehicular accident having involvement of a Fiat Car bearing
registration no. MH-20-8110 owned by respondent no.1 and insured
with respondent no.2.
2. It was the contention of the appellants (who are
hereinafter referred to as the claimants) that deceased Narendra
Rathod was carrying on the business of selling kerosene and was
earning around Rs.2,000/- to 2,200/- per month. The age of
deceased Narendra was stated to be 35 years at the time of his
death. The claimants had, therefore, claimed the compensation of
Rs.3,50,000/- The learned tribunal after assessing the evidence on
record awarded the compensaiotn of Rs.1,39,400/- to the
claimants. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation so awarded
the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. The amount of compensation is sought to be enhanced
by the claimants on the following grounds.
i) That the tribunal has erred in holding the income of
the deceased only to the extent of Rs.1200/- per month
3 26 fa 302.00.odt
when the claimants had placed on record sufficient
evidence showing that the income of the deceased was
around Rs. 2,000/- per month.
ii) That the tribunal has incorrectly applied the multiplier of
14 when having regard to the age of the deceased to be
35 years, the appropriate multiplier would be of 16.
iii) That the tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of
compensation towards non-pecuniary damages.
4. The learned counsel for the insurance company has
opposed the prayer for enhancement in the amount of
compensation and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
According to the learned counsel, the tribunal has awarded just and
fair compensation on the basis of evidence on record.
5. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and
the evidence on record. The tribunal has held the income of
deceased Narendra to be around Rs. 1200/- per month. The
tribunal has observed that, though the claimants did place on
record the copy of kerosene license issued in the name of deceased
Narendra did not place on record any positive evidence about his
income. The tribunal has further observed that the license so
issued in the name of deceased Narendra was only for the period
from January 1992 till 31st December, 1992. The tribunal has
4 26 fa 302.00.odt
further observed that the brother of deceased Narendra has
continued the said business after the demise of Narendra. After
having considered the aforesaid facts the tribunal has determined
the income of deceased Narendra to the tune of Rs. 1200/- per
month.
6. Though, it is true that no concrete evidence has been
produced on record by the claimants as about the income of
deceased Narendra. It appears to me that, having regard to the
fact that deceased Narendra was carrying on the business of selling
kerosene, income of deceased Narendra could have been
reasonably determined bit more than so assessed by the tribunal. I
hold the income of deceased Narendra to the tune of Rs.1500/- per
month i.e. Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The tribunal has assessed the
amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 14. Having
regard to the age of deceased Narendra multiplier of 16 ought to
have been applied. While assessing the amount of dependency
compensation 1/3rd of the income of the deceased will have to be
deducted form his annual income and the same will have to be
multiplied by the appropriate multiplier. As such the dependency
compensation payable to the claimants can be assessed to
Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs. 18,000/- - Rs. 6,000/- personal expenses = Rs.
12,000/- x 16 = Rs. 1,92,000/-).
7. It is further noticed that, the tribunal has awarded
5 26 fa 302.00.odt
meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the non pecuniary damages.
The tribunal has awarded the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,000/- towards
consortium. The tribunal has however not awarded any
compensation towards the funeral expenses or towards loss of love
and estate etc. As I noted earlier the amount as awarded towards
consortium is also too inadequate. Considering the fact that, the
appellant no.1 lost her husband at a young age and the appellant
nos. 2 and 3 lost their father at their tender age, I deem it
appropriate to award the aggregate compensation of Rupees One
Fifty Thousand Lakh to the claimants towards loss of consortium
and loss of love and affection etc. I am also inclined to grant sum
of Rs. 8,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The claimants are
thus held entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that this
will be just and fair compensation payable to the
appellants/claimants. In the result, the following order.
ORDER
I) The appellants are held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- inclusive of
the amount of N.F.L. Compensation.
II) Respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall jointly and / or
severally pay the aforesaid amount of
compensation to the appellants with interest
there on @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
6 26 fa 302.00.odt
filing of the claim petition till its realisation.
III) Award be modified accordingly.
IV) The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
(P.R. BORA)
JUDGE
mub
