Bombay High Court
Laxmibai Pandurang Navhare And ... vs The State Of Mah And Anr on 11 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa84113.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.841 OF 2013
01 Laxmibai w/o Pandurang Navhare,
age: 41 years, Occ: Household,
02 Raviraj s/o Pandurang Navhare,
age: 23 years, Occ: Education,
03 Hemraj s/o Pandurang Navhare,
age: 23 years, Occ: Education;
04 Priya d/o Pandurang Navhare,
age: 23 years, Occ: Education;
05 Jijabai w/o Mahajan Navhare,
age: 65 years, Occ: Household,
All R/o Vithal Rukhmai Mandir,
Pavan Nagar, Taroda (Kd), Nanded,
Tq. & District Nanded. Appellants
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Civil Surgeon,
S.G.G.M. Medical College,
and Hospital, Station Road,
Nanded.
02 Director of Insurance,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai. Respondents
Mr.G.R.Syed, advocate for appellants
Mr.A.M.Phule, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 11th January, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
{2}
fa84113.odt
1 By order dated 03.02.2017, this First Appeal was
directed to be listed for final hearing in the week commencing from
06.03.2017.
Record and proceedings were also called for.
2 Admit.
Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice on behalf of
Respondents.
3 At the request and by consent of learned Counsel for
respective parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at
the stage of admission itself.
4 Mr.Sayed, learned Counsel for appellants submits that
deceased Pandurang was Government servant and salary
certificate was produced on record indicating his salary as
Rs.14,949/- per month. He submits that the MACT, has made
undue deductions and taken salary of the deceased at only
Rs.10,000/-. Mr.Sayed further submits that no addition has been
made towards future prospects. He submits that the
compensation awarded towards funeral expenses and consortium
is also totally inadequate. He submits that no compensation has
been awarded towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection.
For all these reasons, Mr.Sayed submits that the compensation
ought to have been determined at Rs.19,00,000/- and not merely
Rs.12,70,000/-, as determined by the MACT.
5 Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P., submits that the appellants
have failed to produce true and correct salary statement of
{3}
fa84113.odt
deceased Pandurang. He submits that, this has been observed by
the MACT in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. Mr.Phule further
submits that the MACT has rightly ignored the personal allowance
drawn by deceased Pandurang and has also taken into account
statutory deductions. Thus, construed, there is no infirmity in
treating income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Mr.Phule
submits that the Tribunal has awarded more than adequate
compensation to the appellants and there is no case made out to
enhance the compensation amount awarded by the MACT.
6 On the basis of evidence on record, submissions of
Mr.Phule as regards monthly income of deceased Pandurang
deserves acceptance. From the documents produced by
appellants, it does appear that all details were not discernible.
There was no clarity as regards the aspect of personal allowance as
well as statutory deductions. In these circumstances, the Tribunal
cannot be faulted for taking income of deceased Pandurang @
Rs.10,000/- per month. To that extent, therefore, the impugned
award warrants no interference.
7 The Tribunal, however, has failed to make any addition
whatsoever towards future prospects of deceased Pandurang.
Recently, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
others, 2017 (13) SCALE 12, has ruled that an addition of 25%,
where deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years, needs to be
given. On this basis, income of the deceased was required to be
taken Rs.12,500/- per month. This means that annual income of
deceased would be Rs.1,50,000/-. From out of this, a deduction of
{4}
fa84113.odt
25% is due, because this is the amount which deceased would
have spent on himself. The contribution of deceased towards his
dependency would, therefore, have to be taken as Rs.1,12,500/- per
year. Taking into consideration that the age of deceased was 44,
the correct multiplier would be 14. The compensation towards
dependency would, therefore, come to Rs.1,12,500 x 14 =
Rs.15,75,000/-. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded only an
amount of Rs.5000/- towards consortium and Rs.5000/- towards
funeral expenses. As ruled in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
these figures should have been, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Further
compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards each of the claimants is due
(excluding wife) towards loss of love and affection. Since there are
three children and one old aged mother, this amount comes to
Rs.60,000/-. The compensation of Rs.15,000/- is also due towards
loss of estate. Thus, to the dependency compensation of
Rs.15,75,000/-, further compensation amount of Rs.1,30,000/-
will have to be added. This takes total compensation amount to
Rs.17,05,000/- (Rs.Seventeen lakhs Five Thousand).
8 The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The
compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.12,70,000/- to
Rs.17,05,000/-. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-
(Rs.Two lakhs Five Thousand) is required to be paid to Jijabai w/o
Mahajan Navhare, mother of deceased Pandurang. Further an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs) each to be paid to Raviraj,
Hemraj and Priya. The balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.Nine
lakhs) to be paid to Laxmibai, widow of deceased Pandurang. The
aforesaid enhanced amount would also carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.,
{5}
fa84113.odt
as already directed by the MACT. In case, amount of
Rs.12,70,000/- has already been received by the claimants, though
not in the proportion as aforesaid, such award to remain
undisturbed. However, from out of the enhanced amount, a sum of
Rs.2,05,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs Five Thousand) should be first paid to
Jijabai Mahajan Navhare, mother of deceased. The balance
amount shall be paid to Laxmibai, in the event Raviraj, Hemraj and
Priya have already received their share of Rs.2 lakhs each.
Otherwise, three children to be paid proportionate to the aforesaid
directions. The impugned award stands modified in the aforesaid
terms. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
M.S.SONAK
JUDGE
adb/fa841.13
