Bombay High Court
Pushpbai Prabhakarrao Halge vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ... on 20 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA.627-2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.627/2001.
Smt. Pushpabai w/o Prabhakarrao Halge,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Sadar Bazar, Hingoli,
Tal. and District Hingoli. ...APPELANT
Versus
United India Insurance Company
Limited, Through : Its Branch
Manager, Parbhani, Tal. and
District Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT
.....
Mr. B. S. Kudale , Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.G. Kanade, Advocate for Respondent
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by
the Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hingoli, dated 5 th
May, 2001 in M.A.C.P.No.224/2000, the original claimant has
preferred this appeal only to the extent of quantum.
2. The learned counsel for appellant-original claimant
submits that, the claimant has examined P.W.2 who happens
2 FA.627-2001
to be income tax practitioner. Deceased Prabhakar used to
submit his income tax returns through P.W.2 Pradeep. The
deceased Prabhakar was earning from his business as well as
from agriculture lands. Deceased Prabhakar was dealing in
the business of fertilizers and seeds, and he was holding
authorization of near about 20 companies for selling their
products including the agricultural equipments. Even
deceased Prabhakar had open a cash credit account within
the limits of Rs.15,00,000/-, and the claimant has also
produced the passbook to that effect marked as Exh.38/1 to
38/14. The appellant /claimant has also produced the audit
report of business of deceased Prabhakar. The learned
counsel submits that, the income of deceased Prabhakar from
both the sources of Rs.10,000/- per month. Even though the
extract of the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet of
the relevant year are produced on record, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the same in its proper
perspective. The learned member of the Tribunal has not
made any addition in the income of deceased Prabhakar
towards his future prospects. The learned counsel submits
that, considering the age of deceased Prabhakar at the time of
his accidental death, addition to the extent of 15 % in his
3 FA.627-2001
income ought to have been made by the Tribunal towards
future prospects. The learned counsel submits that, the
Tribunal has awarded the less amount towards the medical
expenses though the claimant has produced on record all the
medical bills which are to the tune of Rs.1,61,946/-. The
Learned Member of the Tribunal has also awarded meager
amount towards loss of consortium. The learned counsel
submits that, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards attendant charges, loss of estate and funeral
expenses, the claimant is entitled for the same.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurer submits
that, as per the profit and loss account of the year 1996-97
(exh.35), which is just and prior to the accidental death of
deceased Prabhakar, it appears that, deceased Prabhakar had
earned the profit to the tune of Rs.59,848.66 Ps. In the said
profit and loss account, the agriculture income is shown as
Rs.3132.90 Ps. Only. The learned counsel submits that, P.W.
Pradeep, the income tax practitioner, has also admitted in his
cross-examination that, the son of deceased Prabhakar is
running the business at present, and the firm which was
running during lifetime of deceased Prabhakar is still running
4 FA.627-2001
after his death. The learned counsel submits that, even then
the Tribunal has considered the earning of the deceased
Prabhakar @ of Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned counsel
submits that, earnings from the business and the agricultural
source remained as it is, and there is no loss of income as
such. The learned counsel submits that, after considering the
documentary evidence, which is proved by the claimant, the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, no
interference required, so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned.
4. On careful perusal of the pleading, evidence and the
impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it
appears that, the Tribunal has considered profit and loss
account (exh.35) of the year 1996-1997. On perusal of the
extract of profit and loss account (exh.35), it appears that, the
net profit Rs.59,848.66 Ps. was earned during that period,
and the income from the agriculture source was shown as
Rs.3132.90 Ps. Furthermore, the audit report exh.50 and
extract of the profit and loss of the subsequent year 1997-98
and 1998-99 shows the steady rise in the income from the
business source. It is thus clear that, even after the death of
5 FA.627-2001
deceased Prabhakar, his son is efficiently running the
business. However, the Tribunal has considered the loss at
Rs.4,000/- per month due to the lack of supervision and skill
in running business and the agriculture income on the part of
deceased Prabhakar. It appears that, the learned member of
the Tribunal has considered income of the deceased
Prabhakar on some higher side, however considering the
addition of the income towards future prospect, the said
amount of loss in income to the tune of Rs.4,000/- appears to
be just and reasonable. The learned Member of the Tribunal
has however, committed the mistake in applying the multiplier
'5' (five). Deceased Prabhakar met with an accidental death,
at the age of 58 years. As per the ratio laid down in Sarla
Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121. The relevant multiplier for the age group
of a person between 56 to 60 is '9' (nine). Thus the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
future income/dependency requires modification.
5. On careful perusal of the documents at exh.37 and 38, it
appears that, the claimant has incurred the medical expenses
to the tune of Rs.1,61,946/- rounded to Rs.1,62,000/-,
6 FA.627-2001
however the learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- for medical treatment and also for lodging,
special diet, attendant etc. The appellant/ claimant is entitled
for an amount of Rs.1,62,000/- separately towards the
medical expenses and entitled for the amount of Rs.10,000/-
each for lodging, special diet and attendant charges. The
learned Tribunal has awarded only 10,000/- towards loss of
consortium in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others
reported in reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54,
The claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium. The claimant is also entitled for
an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, and
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses.
6. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment and award
requires modification.
7. Thus, the breakup of compensation under various heads
awardable to the appellant/claimant which can be broadly
categories as under :-
7 FA.627-2001
1) Loss of income/dependency Rs.2,88,000/-
(32,000 x 9 )
(as against Rs.1,60,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal)
2) Medical expenses Rs.1,62,000/-
3) Lodging expenses, special diet Rs.30,000/-
and attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
each
(the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
awarded towards medical expenses,
lodging, special diet and attendant charges)
4) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
(as against Rs.10,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal)
5) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-,
6) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-,
--------------
The claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.6,05,000/-.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is hereby partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
2. The Judgment and award passed by the
Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli,
dated 5th May, 2001 in M.A.C.P.No.224/2000, is
hereby modified in the following manner :-
8 FA.627-2001
a] Respondent shall pay to the petitioner
compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- (six lakhs five
thousand) including compensation towards no
fault liability with proportionate costs with interest
@ 9 % per annum, from the date of the claim
petition, till its realization.
3. Rest of the Judgment and award stands
confirmed.
4. Award be drawn up, as per above
modification.
5. If any amount is paid, as per the Judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal, the same shall
be the part of the award after modification.
6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J.]
...
VJG/-
