Bombay High Court
Sahebrao Baburao Lokhande And Ors vs Mahesh Dhanlal Shivde And Anr on 6 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.115/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.115 OF 2002
1) Sahebrao s/o Baburao Lokhande
Age: 40 Yrs., occu. Agril. & Labour
2) Bandu Sahebrao Lokhande
Age: 14 Yrs.,
3) Alka Sahebrao Lokhande,
age: 11 Years.
4) Jaishree Sahebrao Lokhande
Age: 8 Yrs.,
5) Savita Sahebrao Lokhande,
Age: 6 Yrs.,
Appellants are minors, through
their Guardian Appellant No.1.
All residents of Bahirwadi,
Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmedangar.= APPELLANT/S
(Orig.Petitioners)
VERSUS
1) Mahesh Dhanlal Shivde
age: 40 Yrs., occu.Transport
Business, r/o Bhoigalli,Taloda,
District Dhulia.
2) United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Through Divisional Manager,
2, Kishan Keranti Building,
Market Yard, Ahmednagar. = RESPONDENT/S
(Orig.Opponents)
-----
Mr.DR Markad, Adv. h/for Mr. AN Kakade, Advocate for
Appellants;
Mr. R.Y. Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.1
(Absent);
Mr. SG Chapalgaonkar, Adv.for Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:08:43 :::
2 FA NO.115/2002
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
6 th
June,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. By filing the present appeal,
the appellants are seeking enhancement in the
amount of compensation as awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, at Ahmednagar (for
short, the Tribunal) in MACP No.289/1997.
2) The Tribunal has awarded the
compensation of Rs.75,000/- inclusive of NFL
compensation. The award has been passed only
against the owner of the vehicle and the
insurance company has been exonerated from its
liability to indemnify the insured on the ground
that the owner has committed the breach of policy
conditions by allowing the person not holding
valid driving license to drive the offending
vehicle.
3) The learned Counsel appearing for the
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:08:43 :::
3 FA NO.115/2002
appellants though raised several grounds in
exception to the impugned judgment, the only
issue, which needs consideration is correctness
in application of multiplier. Though as about
the income of the deceased, the appellants'
counsel has submitted that the trial court has
not properly considered the income of the
deceased, after having gone through the
discussion made by the trial court, it does not
appear to me that the trial court has committed
any error in holding the income of the deceased
to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month for the
purposes of determining the amount of
compensation.
4) Apparent mistake, however, seems to have
been committed by the Tribunal in respect of
application of the multiplier. Age of the
deceased was admittedly 32 years at the time of
her death. In the circumstances, the appropriate
multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied,
whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:08:43 :::
4 FA NO.115/2002
of 8 while determining the amount of
compensation. It appears to me that only to the
said extent, the impugned Award needs to be
modified and the amount of compensation needs to
be enhanced accordingly. By applying the
multiplier of 8, the amount of dependency
compensation was determined to the tune of Rs.
62,400/-. The same needs to be doubled since the
multiplier of 16 is to be applied.
5) Though the learned Counsel was
persuasive in his submission that the insurance
company needs to be directed to first pay the
amount of compensation and then to recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle, I am not
convinced with the argument so advanced by the
learned Counsel. I have carefully perused the
grounds of objections. Appellant has not raised
any objection in regard to the exoneration of the
insurance company from its liability to indemnify
the insured. At this juncture, the submission so
made, therefore, cannot be accepted.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:08:43 :::
5 FA NO.115/2002
6) After having considered the entire
material on record, as I mentioned earlier, the
judgment needs to be interfered with only on the
point of the multiplier and the amount of
compensation needs to be enhanced by Rs.62,400/-.
Hence, the following order, -
ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The amount of compensation as awarded by
the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.62,400/-.
iii) Respondent No.1 shall pay the enhanced
amount of compensation to the appellant/s
together with the interest accrued thereon @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its realization.
iv) The Award be drawn accordingly.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
