Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Suman Waman Kumare And 4 Ors on 24 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 53 of 2010
Appellant : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pattiwar
Buildingm, M. G. Road, Chandrapur,
through its Regional Office, S. K. Tower,
Nelson Square, Chindwara Road, Nagpur
Versus
Respondents: 1) Smt Suman Waman Kumare, aged about
57 years, Occ: Household work
2) Ku Vidya Waman Kumare, aged about
26 years,
3) Yunus Khan Uusuf Khan, aged about 40
years, Occ: Business, resident of Chandrapur
4) Sayyad Vasim Sayyad Latif, aged about 30
years, resident of Chandrapur
5) Sk. Firoz Sk. Pyaru, aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Driver, resident of Chandrapur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. W. Paunikar, Advocate for appellant
Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2
Respondents 3 to 5 are served
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 21st November 2017
Oral Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred on a short question of law
arising from the impugned judgment and order and it relates to the basis
of selection of multiplier.
2. Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
was filed by mother and sister of deceased Anil Kumre who died in a
vehicular accident that took place on 18.12.2001. According to the
original claimants (respondents no. 1 and 2), the accident occurred owing
to the rash and negligent driving of one vehicle of TATA make bearing
registration No. MH-34-F-3526. At the time of accident, which took
place at about 04.00 pm on Chichpalli-Mul Road between Ajaypur-
Chichpalli villages, District Chandrapur, Anil was standing on the left side
of the road along with motor-cycle owned by respondent no. 5 bearing
registration No. MH-34-J/779 when dash was given to him by Tata Sumo
jeep. Anil Kumre died of the injuries that he sustained in this accident.
3. The claim petition which was filed against the appellant, the
insurer of the Tata vehicle; driver and owner of the Tata vehicle and
owner of motor-cycle who are respondents no. 3 to 5 in this appeal, was
resisted only by the appellant. On merits of the case, the Tribunal found
that the insurer, owner and driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle were liable to
pay compensation and directed them to pay Rs. 7,92,756/- on that count
together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. Owner of motor-cycle (respondent no. 5) was, however,
exonerated. This judgment and order rendered in MACP No. 65 of 2002
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur on 29 th July 2009 is
assailed by the appellant-insurer in this appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the original claimants. Nobody appears on behalf of
remaining respondents.
5. In support of his contention that age of the parent i.e.
respondent no. 1 ought to have been considered while selecting
appropriate multiplier, learned counsel has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. v. Ramrao Lala Borse & ors reported in 2016 (6) ALL MR
89 wherein it is held that in cases where the deceased was young and his
parents are aged, age of the parents should form the basis for selection of
multiplier. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, however,
submits that appropriate orders be passed.
6. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in
Ramrao Lala Borse (supra) would have to be taken as impliedly
overruled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & ors rendered
in SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 on 31 st October 2017. In this case, it has
been held that age of the deceased shall form the basis for selection of
multiplier. Therefore, the issue is now no longer res integra and the
finding recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the multiplier by taking age
of the deceased as its basis, would have to be confirmed and it is
confirmed accordingly. The argument of learned counsel for the
appellant made in this regard is rejected.
7. The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that deceased being a bachelor at the time of his death, 50% amount
ought to have been deducted, I find that there is substance in this
argument. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 concedes to
the law settled in this regard. Therefore, deduction of 50% of the amount
on account of total loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal would
have to be made.
8. On going through the impugned judgment and order, I find
that one more modification must be there in this case. The Tribunal has
granted amount of Rs. 4500/- under two heads of funeral expenses and
loss of estate. This amount should have been Rs. 30,000/- as held in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which now I grant to respondents no. 1 and
2.
9. In view of the above, I find that this appeal deserves to be
partly allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and order.
Respondents no. 1 and 2 will be entitled to receive compensation as
under:
Total loss of dependency after deducting
50% of the amount on account of personal
expenses (Rs. 2898 x 12 x 17) .. Rs. 5,91,192/-
Funeral expenses .. Rs. 30,000/-
Total compensation .. Rs. 6,21,192/-
It is declared that the claimants (respondents no. 1 and 2) are
entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 6,21,192/- from the appellant and
respondents no. 3 and 4 jointly and severally together with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The impugned
judgment and order stand modified in these terms and appeal is disposed
of accordingly. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
