Bombay High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Gitanjali Chakradhar Bhosale And ... on 25 August, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
FA-493-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.493 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5921 OF 2019
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
A subsidiary of General Insurance Co.
of India Ltd., having one of its
Divisional Office at Station Road,
Aurangabad, through its
authorised signatory ..Appellant
(Orig. respondent no.2)
Vs.
1. Gitanjali Chakradhar Bhosale,
Age : 28 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Isad, Tk. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani
2. Shlok Chakdradhar Bhosale,
Age : years, u/g. R.No.1
3. Subhadrabai Nagorai Bhosale,
Age 64 years, Occ. and Res.
As above
4. Nagorao Keshavrao Bhosale,
Age : 66 years, Occ. Nil,
Res. As above
5. Sunil Baburao Chavan,
Age : Major, Occ. owner of vehicle,
r/o. Vidyakunj Colony, Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 05:41:07 :::
2 FA-493-21
6. Amol Janardhan Gutte,
Age : major, Occ. Driver,
r/o. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed ..Respondents
(Resp Nos.1 to 4-orig.
claimants; resp.no.5-
orig. resp no.1; and resp.no.6.-
orig. res. no.3)
----
Mr.A.B.Kadethankar, Advocate for appellant
Mr.S.S.Dargad, Advocate h/f. Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate
for respondent nos.1 to 4
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : AUGUST 25, 2021
ORDER :-
The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and
order dated 27.12.2018 passed by learned Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.51 of 2017. Under the impugned award, original
petitioners/claimants (respondents herein) have been granted
compensation of Rs.87,17,408/- (exclusive of no fault liability
amount) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 25.07.2017 till
realisation of the amount.
3 FA-493-21
FACTS :-
2. The deceased - Chakradhar along with his brother-
in-law, was proceeding on foot along Parli old Ghatnandur road.
It was 6:45 p.m. of 23.04.2017. A Jeep bearing registration
no.MH-16-E-0059, driven in rash and negligent manner, came
from behind and knocked Chakdradhar down. He was
immediately rushed to a hospital, but in vain. On 25.04.2017,
the brother-in-law of the deceased lodged the FIR naming
therein the driver of the jeep (MH-16-E-0059) to be responsible
for the accident and death of Chakradhar.
3. The widow, parents and minor child of the deceased
filed the petition for compensation. The deceased was serving
as an Assistant Teacher at a monthly pay of Rs.44,674/-. He
was 33 years old when breathed his last. The claimants,
therefore, prayed for compensation of little over Rs.Eighty
Lakhs.
The claim petition was resisted by the appellant -
insurance company on the grounds of false involvement of the
vehicle in the accident, want of effective and valid driving
4 FA-493-21
licence of the driver to drive the vehicle at the relevant time
and quantum as well.
4. Heard Mr.A.B.Kadethankar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant - insurance company and
Mr.S.S.Dargad, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1
to 4. Considered the submissions advanced by respective
learned counsel. Perused the impugned award.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance
company would submit that the report of the accident was
lodged two days thereafter. The vehicle, which allegedly
knocked the deceased down, fled soon thereafter. There is no
material to indicate, how come the informant gave in the FIR,
number of the jeep. The informant did not suffer any injury in
the accident. Had he really seen number of the offending
vehicle, he could have lodged the FIR soon after the accident
giving number of the offending vehicle therein. On the question
of quantum of compensation, learned counsel would submit
that the same is on higher side. The statutory deductions have
5 FA-493-21
not been taken into consideration. The interest has been
awarded at exorbitant rate. He, therefore, urged for allowing
the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants would, on the
other hand, submit that the FIR was lodged by an eye witness,
who was in the company of the deceased when the accident
took place. The deceased was none other than the brother-in-
law of the informant. Since the deceased was rushed to the
hospital in critical condition, it was but natural for the family
members of the deceased to attend him first. The informant
has stated in the FIR that he too was injured. The delay of
little over one and half days in lodging the FIR is not fatal to
the facts and circumstances of the case. On due investigation,
police filed charge sheet against the jeep driver. The insurance
company did not lead any evidence in proof of non involvement
of the vehicle in question. On the question of quantum, learned
counsel would submit that the deceased was a permanent
government employee. The compensation has been awarded
in view of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of
6 FA-493-21
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.,
(2017)16 SCC 680. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. Considering the rival submissions, following points
arise for my determination:-
(i) Whether involvement of jeep bearing registration
no.MH-16-E-0059 in the accident has been proved ?
(ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is exorbitant ?
(iii) What order ?
8. Admittedly, the deceased Chakradhar along with his
brother-in-law was walking along Parli old Ghatnandur road. It
was 06:45 p.m. of 23.04.2017. A jeep came from behind and
knocked the deceased down. He was ultimately rushed to the
hospital. He, however, passed away. On the next day of the
accident, the brother-in-law of the deceased lodged the FIR,
alleging the driver of the jeep (MH-16-E-0059) to be
7 FA-493-21
responsible for the accident, as has been submitted by learned
counsel for the claimants that the family members would first
attend the deceased. It has also been stated in the FIR that
the informant too, was injured. He too, was admitted to the
hospital. Chakradhar died under treatment. On the informant's
discharge from the hospital, he, ultimately, lodged the FIR. On
due investigation, the police have charge-sheeted the driver of
the jeep. It appears that the appellant - insurance company
did not lead any evidence in disproof of the claim regarding
involvement of the jeep (MH-16-E-0059) in the accident.
9. It is a case of an eye witness-cum-victim of the
accident to have lodged the FIR within fourty eight hours
thereof, when his brother-in-law passed away within twenty
four hours of the accident. The informant has given in the FIR
vehicle number of the offending vehicle. On due investigation,
driver of the said jeep was proceeded against by filing charge
sheet. Except denying involvement of the vehicle in question,
none of the respondents before the Tribunal, made efforts to
disprove claim of the claimants. On the basis of preponderance
8 FA-493-21
of probabilities, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion as
regards involvement of the jeep.
10. A faint attempt was made to submit that the driver
of the jeep did not hold an effective and valid licence to drive
the same. It appears that lateron, a valid driving licence was
placed before the Tribunal.
QUANTUM:-
11. It is true that in the first blush, the Tribunal appears
to have granted compensation somewhat on higher side. It
has, however, been justified in granting that much
compensation. The Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the
Apex Court in the cases of (i) Pranay Sethi (supra); (ii) Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
anr., (2009)6 SCC 121; and (iii) Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and ors.,
(2018) 18 SCC 130, and quantified the amount of
compensation.
9 FA-493-21
12. The deceased Chakradhar was 33 years of age when
he breathed his last. He was serving as Assistant Teacher. His
salary certificate is on record to indicate that his monthly salary
was Rs.44,674/-. Considering his age and being in permanent
service, the Tribunal added 50% of his monthly wages towards
future prospects. This way, his monthly income came to
Rs.67,011/-. Considering the number of dependents, the
Tribunal deducted 1/3rd thereof towards living expenses of the
deceased. Thus, the monthly loss of dependency comes to
Rs.44,674/-, which came to Rs.5,36,088/- per annum.
Applying multiplier of 16 thereto, the amount of compensation
on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.85,77,408/-. A
sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded on account of funeral
expenses and loss of estate. A sum of Rs.40,000/- has been
awarded as loss of spousal consortium to the claimant (widow).
A sum of Rs.40,000/- each has also been awarded to the
parents towards loss of filial consortium. As such, the Tribunal
has rightly quantified the amount of compensation. Although
10 FA-493-21
interest has been awarded at the rate of 9% per annum, I do
not propose to scale it down.
13. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
14. Amount in deposit with this Court be paid to the
claimants with interest accrued thereon. The Civil Application
stands disposed of.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
