Bombay High Court
Sushila Ramnath Bable And Ors vs Mohan Travesl And Ors on 4 May, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2002
1. Sushila Ramnath Bamble,
Age 25 years,
2. Vandana Ramnath Bamble,
Age 9 years, minor
3. Vijay Ramnath Bamble,
Age 5 years, minor
4. Prakash Ramnath Bamble,
Age 4 years, minor
Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are minors and
under guardianship of Petitioner No.1
Sushila Ramnath Bamble.
All R/o Kuntawali Ambarnath,
Gaodev Road, Near Hanuman Mandir
Sewalingnagar, Ambarnath. ... APPELLANTS
(Original Petitioner Nos.1 to 4)
V E R S U S
1) Mohan Travels,
Mrs. Nandini M. Ghatge,
Age Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o 517 E. P.B.Road, Kolhapur.
2) Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Limited,
2420, Gen. Thimayya Road,
Gulmohar Apartment, Pune - 411 001.
3) Shardabai Kondaji Bamble ( R.Nos.3 & 4 dismissed vide
Age 50 years, Court's order dated 18-11-03)
4 Kondaji Bhoraji Bamle,
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:33 :::
2
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
Age 60 years,
Both R/o Kuntalwali Ambarnath,
Gaodev Road, Near Hanuman Mandir
Sewalingnagar, Ambarnath. ... RESPONDENTS
(Respdt.Nos.1 & 2 Orig. Opponent Nos.1 & 2 and
Respdt.Nos.3 & 4 Orig. Petitioners Nos.5 & 6)
...
Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, h/f Mr. S. D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 04th May, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by
the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ahmednagar dated 17th July, 2001 in MACP No.688 of 1993, the
original Claimants have preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum
of compensation.
2 The learned counsel for the Appellants / original
Claimants submits that the learned Member of the Tribunal has not
considered the future prospects of deceased Ramnath though he was
getting salaried income. Undisputedly, deceased Ramnath was
serving as 'B' grade labour in Ordinance Factory, Ambarnath. The
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:33 :::
3
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
learned counsel submits that even though there are six persons
depending upon the income of deceased Ramnath, the Tribunal has
deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of
deceased Ramnath from his income instead of 1/4th of the permissible
deductions. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has also
awarded meager amount under the non-pecuniary heads such as loss
of consortium etc. Even the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
3 The learned counsel for Respondent / Insurer submits that
the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. No
interference is required.
4 It appears from the evidence and the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal that deceased Ramnath was
working as 'B' grade labour in Ordinance Factory, Ambarnath. His
pay bill was produced on record and the same is marked as Exhibit
64. In the month of March 1993, deceased Ramnath had received the
net salary to the extent of Rs.4,062/-. It is a part of record that
deceased Ramnath was 35 years and 11 months old at the time of his
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:33 :::
4
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
accidental death. The learned Member of the Tribunal ought to have
added 50% amount of his salaried income towards future prospects.
It appears that there are in all six Claimants, who were depending
upon the income of deceased Ramnath. In view of the ratio laid down
by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, (2009) 6
Supreme Court Cases 121, the Tribunal ought to have deducted
1/4th of the amount from the income of deceased Ramnath towards
his personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. The learned
Member of the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
consortium. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.25,000/- towards
loss of consortium for Appellant No.1 / Claimant No.1. Even though
there are three minor Claimants, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation for loss of love and affection. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 /
Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are thus, entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/-
each for loss of love and affection. The learned Member of the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of estate and
funeral expenses. The Claimants are entitled for an amount of
Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses.
Thus, the break up of compensation under the various heads, which
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:33 :::
5
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
can be broadly categorized is as under:
Sr. Particulars of the head Amount in
No Rupees
1) Towards loss of future income / dependency
( Rs.54,837/- [after deducting 1/4th of the amount
towards personal and living expenses] x 16 )
(as against Rs.5,18,400/- awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.8,77,392/-
2) Towards loss of consortium
(as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.25,000/-
3) Towards loss of love and affection
(Rs.10,000/- each for minor Claimant Nos.2 to 4) Rs.30,000/-
4) Towards funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-
5) Towards loss of estate Rs.5,000/-
Total = Rs.9,47,392/-
5 The Appellants / Claimants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.9,47,392/- as worked out hereinbefore. The
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal needs modification.
Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
I. The appeal is, hereby partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
II. The judgment and award passed by the learned
Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ahmednagar dated 17th July, 2001 in MACP No.688
916 FIRST APPEAL 725 OF 2002.odt
of 1993, is hereby modified in the following manner:
"Opponents do pay to the Applicants jointly
and severally an amount of Rs.9,47,392/-
(Rupees Nine Lacs Forty-Seven Thousand
Three-Hundred and Ninety-Two Only) with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of payment."
III. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.
IV. Award be drawn up as per the above modification.
V. Needless to say that if any amount is paid as per
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal,
the same shall be the part of the modified award.
VI. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
