Bombay High Court

Sarita Sunil Sable And Anr vs Bhimashankar Chanappa Lingdalli ... on 25 August, 2021

Bench: R. G. Avachat

                                            First Appeal No.3495/2016 with
                                                 First Appeal No.4429/2016
                                  :: 1 ::



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       FIRST APPEAL NO.3495 OF 2016

 1)       Smt. Sarita w/o Sunil Sable
          Age 23 years, Occu. Household

 2)       Shlok s/o Sunil Sable,
          Age 5 years, Occu. Nil,
          being minor, u/g of appellant No.1,
          natural mother Smt. Sarita Sunil Sable

          Both R/o Kanchanwadi,
          Paithan Road, Aurangabad               ... APPELLANTS

                  VERSUS

 1)       Bhimashankar s/o Chanappa Lingdalli
          Age major, Occu. Driver,
          R/o Rajapur, Taluka Chittapur,
          District Gulbarga (Karnataka State)

 2)       Shiva Reddi Sanga Reddi Patil,
          Age major, Occu. Business
          R/o Anand Nagar, S.B. Temple Road,
          Court Road, Gulbarga
          District Gulbarga (Karnataka State)

 3)       The Divisional Manager,
          Reliance General Insurance Company
          Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad

 4)       Balu s/o Asaram Sable,
          Age 53 years, Occu. Labour,
          R/o Kanchanwadi,
          Paithan Road, Aurangabad

 5)       Bababai @ Babita w/o Balu Sable,
          Age 48 years, Occu. Household
          R/o Kanchanwadi,
          Paithan Road, Aurangabad               ... RESPONDENTS

                                  .......




::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 05:06:21 :::
                                             First Appeal No.3495/2016 with
                                                 First Appeal No.4429/2016
                                  :: 2 ::


 Shri Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellants
 Shri R.D. Biradar, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5
                                 .....

                                  WITH
                       FIRST APPEAL NO.4429 OF 2016

 Reliance General Insurance Company,
 through its Manager,
 R/o Reliance General Insurance Company,
 Adalat Road, Aurangabad                 ... APPELLANTS

                  VERSUS

 1)       Smt. Sarita w/o Sunil Sable
          Age 23 years, Occu. Household
          R/o Kanchanwadi,
          Paithan Road, Aurangabad

 2)       Bababai alias Babita w/o Balu Sable,
          Age 48 years, Occu. Household

 3)       Balu s/o Asaram Sable,
          Age 53 years, Occu. Labour,

 4)       Shlok s/o Sunil Sable,
          Age 6 years, Occu. Nil,
          under guardianship of resp. No.1 i.e.

          No.1 to 4 All R/o Kanchanwadi,
          Paithan Road, Aurangabad

 5)       Bhimashankar s/o Chanappa Lingdalli
          Age major, Occu. Driver,
          R/o Rajapur, Taluka Chittapur,
          District Gulbarga (Karnataka State)

 6)    Shiva Reddi Sanga Reddi Patil,
       Age major, Occu. Business
       R/o Anand Nagar, S.B. Temple Road,
       Court Road, Gulbarga
       District Gulbarga (Karnataka State) ... RESPONDENTS
 Nos.5 & 6 deleted as per
 Court's order dated 1/12/2016)




::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 05:06:21 :::
                                                    First Appeal No.3495/2016 with
                                                        First Appeal No.4429/2016
                                        :: 3 ::


                                .......
 Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for appellant
 Shri B.V. Dhage, Advocate for respondent No.1.
 Shri R.D. Biradar, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3
                                  .....
                                 .......
                                   CORAM :        R. G. AVACHAT, J.
                                   DATE :         25th August, 2021
 JUDGMENT:

Since these appeals are interconnected, the same

are being decided by this common judgment. Both these

appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 12/1/2016,

passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT),

Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP)

No.359/2013. The MACT has awarded compensation of

Rs.18,21,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of death

in vehicular accident. The Appeal (No.3495/2016) has been

filed by the widow and minor son of the deceased - Sunil,

challenging the apportionment of the amount of compensation

under the impugned award. While Appeal (No.4429/2016)

has been preferred by the Insurance Company, taking

exception to the quantum of compensation.

FACTS :-

2. It so happened that, the deceased - Sunil was

First Appeal No.3495/2016 with First Appeal No.4429/2016 :: 4 ::

proceeding on his motorbike from Aurangabad to Georai. It

was 12.30 midnight on 21/4/2013. The deceased was riding

the motorbike. The offending truck dashed the motorbike. As

a result thereof, Sunil suffered multiple injuries and

succumbed thereto. The widow, minor son and parents of the

deceased, therefore, preferred MACP for compensation. The

Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at

Rs.6000/- per month, added 50% thereof towards future

prospects and calculated the amount of compensation

applying the multiplier of 18. After deducting one third of the

annual income of the deceased towards his personal and

living expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,96,000/- towards

loss of dependency. The widow and the minor son were

granted Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection.

The parents were awarded Rs.50,000/- each on the same

count. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has further been awarded

towards loss of estate besides Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses. The amount of compensation has been directed to

be paid to the petitioners equally.

3. Shri M.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

appellants in First Appeal No.3495/2016 would submit that,

the widow of the deceased was just 20 years of age while her

First Appeal No.3495/2016 with First Appeal No.4429/2016 :: 5 ::

husband passed away. Their son was 2 years of age. The

parents of the deceased were not depending on the deceased.

They have their own source of earning. They have two more

sons. One of them is in Government service. The widow of

the deceased has been staying at her parental house. Her

culture does not permit her to remarry. In this backdrop, the

appellants (widow and the minor child) deserve to be given

more share in the amount of compensation.

4. Shri R.D. Biradar, learned counsel for

respondents- parents of the deceased, would, on the other

hand, submit that, the parents of the deceased are old one.

They were dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal was,

therefore, justified in directing the apportionment of

compensation equally.

QUANTUM :-

5. Shri S.S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant

Insurance Company in First appeal No.4429/2016 would

submit that, the Tribunal has granted compensation more

than the one claimed in the p992017523156etition. The same

indicates the petitioners have even not anticipated grant of

such huge compensation. Under the other conventional

heads, an exorbitant amount has been awarded. According to

First Appeal No.3495/2016 with First Appeal No.4429/2016 :: 6 ::

him, it was the year 2013 when the accident took place. In

those days, the notional income was in the range of Rs.3000 -

3500 per month. He, therefore, urged for reduction in the

amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants would, on the

other hand, submit that, the deceased was a Mason, a skilled

worker. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased

would earn Rs.8000/- per month. The Tribunal erred in taking

notional income at Rs.6000/- per month. According to

learned counsel, although the claimants have not filed any

appeal or cross-objections for enhancement of compensation

granted by the Tribunal, they can very well challenge the

findings in justification of quantum of compensation awarded

under the impugned award.

7. The Tribunal held the deceased was a Mason.

There is no challenge to these observations. Masionary is a

skilled job. Minimum wages of skilled labour in the year 2013

were close to Rs.8000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to

have awarded compensation taking into consideration the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8000/-. Based on the

monthly income of Rs.8000/-, with 40% thereof as addition

thereto towards future prospects, the monthly income of the

First Appeal No.3495/2016 with First Appeal No.4429/2016 :: 7 ::

deceased would come to Rs.11,200/-. As such, the annual

income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200 x

12). Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18

has rightly been applied. Rs.1,34,400 x 18 comes to

Rs.24,19,200/-. After deducting one third thereof i.e.

Rs.8,06,400/- towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,12,800/-.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each to the widow

and minor son and Rs.50,000/- each to the parents of the

deceased on account of love and affection. This quantum

needs to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- each in view of the Apex

Court judgment in case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram

Alias Chuhru Ram & ors., [ (2018) 18 SCC 130]. A sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate. The

same is scaled down to Rs.15,000/-. While Rs.25,000/-

granted towards funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

As such, the total of Rs.16,12,800/- + Rs.1,60,000/- +

Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- comes to Rs.18,02,800/-.

8. In case of Ranjana Prakash & ors. Vs. Divisional

Manager [ 2012 AIR SCW 848 ], the Apex Court has observed

First Appeal No.3495/2016 with First Appeal No.4429/2016 :: 8 ::

as under :

"Where in an appeal filed by the owner/ insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation."

9. The difference between the amount of

compensation granted by the Tribunal and worked out by this

Court as above, is not more than Rs.19,000/-. This Court is,

therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned award

so far as regards quantum of compensation is concerned.

10. On the question of apportionment, this Court

accepts the submission made by the learned counsel Mr. M.R.

Deshmukh for the appellants in First Appeal No.3495/2016

and, therefore, directs to apportion the amount of

compensation in the proportion of 60 : 40 between the

appellants and the respondents No.1 and 2 in First Appeal

No.3495/2016.