Bombay High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Suwarna Umakant Majge & Ors on 6 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 732/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.732 OF 2006
National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Having its Head office and
Registered office at 3,Middleton
Street, Kolkata, a branch office at
Latur and a Divisional office at
Hazari Chambers, Station road,
Aurangabad, now through the
Asstt. Divisional Manager, at
Aurangabad. = APPELLANT
(orig.Resp.No.4)
VERSUS
1) Suwarna w/o Umakant Majge,
Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Household
R/o Latur.
2) Abhijit s/o Umakant Majge,
a minor, U/g of his natural
mother - Suwarna Majge,
R/o Latur.
3) Anup s/o Umakant Majge,
a minor, U/g of his natural
Mother - Suwarna Majge,
R/o Latur.
4) Shankarappa s/o Bapurao Majge,
Age: 60 Yrs., occu. Nil.
R/o Latur.
5) Gangabai w/o Shankarappa Majge,
Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Nil.
R/o Latur. = RESPONDENTS
(orig.claimant Nos.
1 to 5)
6) Haridas s/o Narayan Kendre,
Age: 33 Yrs., occu. Bus driver
R/o ST Depot, Ahmedpur. = RESPONDENT
(orig.Resp.No.1.)
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:08:40 :::
2 FA 732/2006
7) Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Regional
Transport Corporation, Laatur = RESPONDENET
(orig.Resp.No.2.)
8) Sow. Uma w/o Sanjiv Limaye
Age: 40 Yrs., occu. Business,
R/o Karad Colony, Infront of
Rest House, Ahmedpur. = RESPONDENT
(orig.Resp.No.3.)
-----
Mr.RC Bora, Adv. h/for Mr. PP Bafna,Advocate for
Appellant;
Mr. SV Warad, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 1 to 3;
Ms.RD Reddy, Adv.for Resp.Nos. 6 & 7.
Mr.DA Mane, Adv. h/for Mr. Shri Milind Patil, Adv.
For Resp.No.8;
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
6 th
June,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Aggrieved by the Judgment and
Award delivered by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Latur (for short, the Tribunal) on 18th
March, 2006 in MACP No.402/2001, the appellant -
insurance company has preferred the present
appeal.
2) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed the
3 FA 732/2006
aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation on
account of death of Umakant Majage, who died in a
vehicular accident happened on 10th May, 2001
having involvement of an ST bus bearing
registration No.MH-20-D 1733 and a mini bus
bearing registration No. MH-26-C-4584.
3) The learned Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded the compensation of
Rs.8,15,600/- inclusive of NFL compensation. The
tribunal has held the owner and insurer of the
mini bus liable for paying the aforesaid amount
of compensation to the original claimants. The
claim has been dismissed against the driver of
the ST bus and the ST corporation.
4) Shri Bora, holding for Shri Bafna,
learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -
insurance company, at the outset, submitted that
though in the memo of appeal, the impugned award
has been challenged on various grounds, the
insurance company is restricting its challenge
4 FA 732/2006
only to the extent of the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal.
5) The learned Counsel submitted that
having regard to the fact that the income of the
deceased was on higher side, the Tribunal, only
on the basis of the age of the deceased should
not have applied the multiplier of 13. The
learned Counsel further submitted that in catena
of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled
that in the cases where income of the deceased is
huge, age of the deceased shall not be the only
criterion for selection of the multiplier. The
learned Counsel further submitted that ignoring
the aforesaid principle, the Tribunal has
assessed the amount of compensation selecting the
multiplier only on the basis of the age of the
deceased and without considering the income of
the deceased and as such the impugned award
requires to be modified.
6) The learned Counsel appearing for the
5 FA 732/2006
original claimants has supported the impugned
Judgment and Award. The learned counsel
submitted that a well-reasoned order has been
passed by the Tribunal and no interference is
required in the impugned Judgment and Award. The
learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
7) After having considered the material on
record, apparently I do not find any substance in
the objection raised on behalf of the appellant -
insurance company that the Tribunal has
determined the amount of compensation on
unreasonably higher side. It is not in dispute
that deceased Umakant was serving as Professor in
a junior college and his monthly income/salary
was Rs.9,750/-. It is further not in dispute
that after deducting the amounts of provident
fund, income tax etc., the take-home salary of
deceased Umakant was Rs.7650/-. It is further
not in dispute that age of deceased Umakant at
the time of his death was 45 years. On the basis
6 FA 732/2006
of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the tribunal
has assessed the amount of dependency
compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,95,600/-. I
see no error in the amount of compensation so
determined by the learned Tribunal. The income
of deceased Umakant, which has been duly proved
by the claimants to the tune of Rs.9750/- and
after deductions Rs. 7650/-, in any case, cannot
be held to be huge income so as to consider the
arguments of the appellant - insurance company
that in selecting the multiplier in such cases,
along with age of the deceased, the income of the
deceased shall also be one of the considerations.
I, therefore, reject the contention so raised.
8) It was further sought to be canvassed
that the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards funeral expenses is
unreasonable. The contention so raised must also
be rejected in view of the fact that the amount
of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal
not only towards the funeral expenses, but also
7 FA 732/2006
towards the loss of love and affection, company
and consortium.
9) After having considered the entire
material on record, it does not appear to me that
the Tribunal has committed any error in awarding
the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,50,600/- to
the claimants. There is no merit in the appeal
so filed. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed, however without any order as to the
costs. Pending civil application, if any, stands
disposed of.
10) The original claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount of compensation, if any,
deposited by the insurance company in this Court
together with the interest accrued thereon.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
fldr 8.6.17
