Bombay High Court
Smt. Subhadra Bhimrao Raut & Anor vs United India Insu. Co. Ltd. Thru. ... on 10 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa1141.08.J.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2008
1] Smt. Subhadra wd/o Bhimrao Raut,
Aged 51 years, Occ: Housewife.
2] Satish s/o Bhimrao Raut,
Aged 35 yrs., Occ: Business.
Both presently resident of Plot No.3,
Meshram Layout (Rajgriha Nagar)
C.R.P.F. Gate, Hingna Road,
Nagpur - 440 016. ...... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] United India Insurance Company
Ltd., Branch Bikaner, through its
Legal Cell Department of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor,
Bank of India Building, Civil Lines,
Kingsway, Nagpur - 440 001.
Amended as 2] Hetram s/o Bagadpatram Bishnoi,
per Court's
order dated
Aged-Adult.
16.07.08
3] Phutaram s/o Bagadpatram Bishnoi
Aged about - Adult.
Both owners of Vehicle and resident
of Gondu, District Kolayat,
Bikaner, Rajasthan. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.V. Bhoskar, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri A.J. Pophaly, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:32:00 :::
fa1141.08.J.odt 2/8
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
th MARCH, 2017.
DATE: 10
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The appellants had filed Civil Application (CAF)
No.542 of 2017 for grant of early hearing of the appeal.
Considering the limited challenge in the appeal, the application is
allowed and the appeal is taken up for hearing.
2] One Bhimrao Raut, husband of appellant No.1 and
father of appellant No.2 was serving as Head Constable in the
State Reserve Police Force, Nagpur. On 06.03.2001 he was riding
a two wheeler, which was being driven by his colleague.
Said vehicle was dashed by a truck resulting in injuries being
sustained by both of them. Said Bhimrao Raut expired
on 30.04.2001. On that basis the appellant filed proceedings
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.6,59,500/-. The Claims Tribunal
after considering the evidence on record awarded sum of
Rs.4,58,452/- as compensation along with the interest. Not being
satisfied with the quantum of compensation the present appeal
has been filed.
fa1141.08.J.odt 3/8
3] Shri Bhoskar, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the Claims Tribunal did not take into consideration
the net salary of the deceased and instead deducted various
amounts from the same. According to him, only the amount of
professional tax was liable to be deducted and on that basis the
net salary would be Rs.7239/- per month. It was further submitted
that amount towards conventional heads was also awarded on a
lower side. The medical expenses as granted were also on lower
side. It was therefore, submitted that considering the age of the
deceased as well as his net salary, the appellants were entitled for
higher amount of compensation. In support of his submission the
learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:
[a] (2009) 6 SCC 121 Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another.
[b] 2013 ACJ 1403 Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and
others.
[c] (2013) 15 SCC 45 Puttamma and others vs. K.L.
Narayana Reddy and another.
It was therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed
by enhancing the amount of compensation.
fa1141.08.J.odt 4/8
4] Shri Pophali, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation by
considering the entire evidence. He submitted that the deceased
was aged about 57 years when the accident took place and that he
was to retire at the age of 58 years. Therefore, split multiplier was
required to be applied by segregating the period in service. It was
also submitted that the appellants had received the amount of
medical expenses of Rs.1,17,496/- from the employer of the
deceased. The appellants had undertaken to refund the said
amount to the State Government if the same was awarded in the
claim petition. Despite this fact the appellants even after receiving
the amount of medical expenses in the present proceedings had
not repaid the same. According to him, the Insurance Company
had therefore, suffered the amount of interest on said amount for
a period of 5 years and 9 months after paying said amount. It was
therefore, submitted that no further enhancement was liable to be
awarded. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment in Chaya and others v. Suresh and
another reported in 2015 ACJ 1470 and First Appeal No.204 of
2004 (Mahadeorao s/o Motiram Ambhore) decided on 16.09.2014.
fa1141.08.J.odt 5/8
5] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and I have perused the records of the case. The following
point arises for determination:
Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement
in the amount of compensation?
6] Before the Claims Tribunal the appellants brought on
record the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of July,
2000 at Exh.50. The monthly salary shown was Rs.7414/- and the
deduction on account of professional tax was Rs.175/-. On that
basis therefore, his net salary would be Rs.7239/- and not
Rs.5179/- as wrongly calculated by the Claims Tribunal.
The annual loss of dependency would therefore, be Rs.86,868/-
1/3rd amount was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses
on which basis the balance amount would be Rs.57,912/-.
7] In so far as the applicability of appropriate multiplier
is concerned, considering the age of the deceased the same would
be 9 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma and others [supra]. According to the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, the split multiplier ought to be applied by
fa1141.08.J.odt 6/8
considering the fact that the deceased was to retire from service at
the age of 58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma and
others [supra] has specifically observed in paras 32 to 34 that
usually the multiplier method as laid down in the case of Sarla
Verma [supra] should be applied only if there is a specific reason
for applying the same and evidence on record before the Tribunal
to that effect that the Tribunal can take into consideration
applying split multiplier. In normal course the multiplier as laid
down in the Second Schedule to the said Act should be applied.
It has further been observed that there should be material
evidence with regard to rise in income due to future prospects.
Considering the aforesaid legal position, I find that in the facts of
the present case, multiplier of 9 deserves to be applied and not the
split multiplier as urged by the respondent No.1. Except the age of
retirement there is no other evidence brought on record by the
respondent No.1 to justify applicability of the split multiplier.
For said reason the observations in the judgment of Chaya and
others [supra] cannot be applied. Taking the multiplier as 9 the
total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,21,208/-.
8] The Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration,
document at Exh.47 found that the appellants had undertaken to
fa1141.08.J.odt 7/8
reimburse the medical expenses after receiving the same in the
proceedings for compensation. This fact was further admitted by
witness No.2, who was examined on behalf of the claimants.
Admittedly, said amount of Rs.1,17,496/- has not been refunded
by the appellant. The submission in that regard made by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the appellants
utilized said amount even as of today therefore, deserves to be
accepted.
9] In so far as the amount towards loss of consortium is
concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded some of Rs.5,000/-
only. Considering the law as laid down in the case of Rajesh and
others [supra], an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium deserves to be granted. Further, Rs.25,000/- can be
awarded towards funeral expenses. The total amount of
compensation would therefore, be Rs.6,46,208/-. However, the
amount of Rs.1,17,500/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.50,668/- being interest on said amount at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
for a period of five years and nine months deserves to be
deducted. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable would
be Rs.4,78,040/-. The point as framed stands answered
accordingly.
fa1141.08.J.odt 8/8
10] In the result, the following order is passed:
[i] The judgment of the Claims Tribunal dated
09.02.2007 in Claim Petition No.719 of 2001 is partly
modified.
[ii] It is held that the appellants are held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.4,78,040/- along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum. Thus, the amounts are
jointly and severally payable by the respondent Nos.1
to 3.
11] Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
