Bombay High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shri Baburao Krishnaji & Others on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
0407 FA 173/2004 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 173/2004
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Division Office No.5, Laxminagar,
Nagpur. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Shri Baburao Krishnaji Ninawe,
Aged 66 years, Occu: Pensioner.
2] Smt. Leelabai w/o Baburao Ninawe
Alias Nakali, aged 54 years, Occu: Nil.
3] Ku. Charusheela d/o Baburao Ninawe
Alias Nakali, aged 24 years,
All R/o. Plot No.289, New Nandanwan
Layout, Nagpur.
4] Ganesh Gulabrao Zade,
owner of Truck MH-31-W-6580,
R/o. C/o Ganesh,
In front of Police Station Wardha.
5] Kishor Mahadeorao Bante,
Aged major, R/o. P.S. Sewagram,
Distt. Wardha.
6] Rajendra s/o Wasudeorao Patil,
Aged 40 years, owner of Truck
MH-31-M-6670, R/o. Bijlinagar,
Sadar, Nagpur. RESPONDE NTS
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2017 00:03:49 :::
0407 FA 173/2004 2 Judgment
Shri D.N. Kukday, counsel for appellant.
Shri S.B. Ninawe, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri P.A. Shendre, counsel for respondent no.4.
CORAM : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 04, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The only point raised for consideration in this appeal is
about the application of appropriate multiplier.
2] Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order
dated 30/10/2003 passed by the MACT, Nagpur in MACP No.
931/1999.
3] As per the facts of appeal, on 24/04/1999, deceased
Deepak, son of respondent nos.1 and 2, who was driving Mini Truck
bearing no. MH-31-M-6670, succumbed to death in the head on
collision as another Truck bearing no. MH-31-W-6580 coming from
opposite direction, gave dash to the Mini Truck of the deceased.
Appellant is the insurance company of both the vehicles. Vide it's
impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal granted compensation
0407 FA 173/2004 3 Judgment
of Rs.2,92,500/- to the respondent-claimant nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally from the present appellant and the owner and driver of
the Truck.
4] While calculating the amount of compensation, learned
Tribunal applied the multiplier of '18', considering the age of the
deceased as 25 years. However, in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd. and another -Vs- Sobha Amarsingh
Rajput and others, III (2016) ACC 407(Bom.), this court has
already taken a view that in case of the death of an unmarried son,
the age of the parents, which is higher, is required to be considered,
for determining the appropriate multiplier. Hence in this case also,
it has to be held that, as admittedly deceased Deepak was
unmarried at the time of accident and the claimants are his parents,
their age need to be considered for determining the correct
multiplier. Admittedly, the age of respondent no.1, claimant
Baburao, at the time of accident was 69 years, whereas the age of
the mother, respondent no.2 Lilabai was 54 years. Hence,
considering their age, appropriate multiplier, as rightly submitted by
learned counsel for appellant is '11'.
0407 FA 173/2004 4 Judgment
5] As learned Tribunal in it's impugned judgment has
determined the amount of compensation, by applying the multiplier
of '18' having regard to the age of the deceased, now that multiplier
needs to be changed to '11', considering the age of the claimants,
who are the parents. To this limited extent, interference is
warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.
6] Hence, appeal is allowed. The compensation amount to
which respondents-claimants become entitled is thus
Rs.16,000/- x 11 years = Rs.1,76,000/- + Rs.2,500/- towards loss
of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses = Rs.1,80,500/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition
i.e. 08/09/1999 till realisation of the amount. Accordingly, it is held
that, respondent nos.1 to 3 are entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.1,80,500/- from the appellant and respondent nos.4 and 5
jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation of the entire amount.
7] Respondent nos.1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw the
amount of compensation as awarded by this court and the appellant
0407 FA 173/2004 5 Judgment
is entitled to withdraw the excess amount, if deposited in the court.
8] Appeal is allowed and judgment and order of the
Tribunal is modified to that extent.
9] Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms, with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
