United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dashrath Bayaji Mane And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 16018 Bom

                                                                             fa.142.07.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.142 OF 2007

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager and
authorised representative and signatory,
Ahmednagar Divisional Officer,
Market Yard, Ahmednagar                                         ..Appellant

                Vs.

1.      Dashrath Bayaji Mane,
        Age:54 years, Occ. Labourer,

2.      Sou. Shashikala Dashrath Mane,
        Age : 50 years, Occ. Nil,
        r/o. Malewadi, Tq. Pathardi,
        Dist. Ahmednagar

3.      Mrs. Swarna Dnyaneshwar Jagtap,
        Age : major, Occ. Transport and Agri.
        r/o. Ganeshnagar, Lasalgaon,
        Tq. Nipahad, Dist. Nashik

4.      Bhagunath Sadashiv Jadhav,
        Age : major, Occ. Agri and Transport
        r/o. Dhamangaon, Tq. Niphad,
        Dist. Nashik
        (As per Court's order dt.05.10.2010
        appeal dismissed against resp.no.4)                     ..Respondents

                                  ----
Mr. A.B.Gatne, Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1
                                  ----

                                    CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2021

2 fa.142.07

JUDGMENT :-

This is an insurance company's appeal, taking exception

to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, on account of death in a vehicular

accident. The amount of compensation awarded under the impugned

award is Rs.Four Lakhs.

2. Mr.A.B.Gatne, learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company, would submit that the deceased was sleeping in

the open and as such, it was contributory negligence. On the

question of quantum, learned counsel would submit that the claim

petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. There is no

evidence about monthly income of the deceased. The accident took

place in the year 2000. The notional income of the deceased would

not have been more than Rs.2,000/- per month in those days.

Since the deceased died bachelor, one half of his income ought to

have been deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

According to him, an excessive claim has been granted. He,

therefore, urged for interference with the impugned award.

3. Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, learned counsel for respondent no.1,

would, on the other hand, submit that due to illiteracy and for want

3 fa.142.07

of funds, no appeal has been preferred for enhancement of

compensation. The respondents/claimants can, however, defend the

amount of compensation awarded under the impugned award. He,

therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.

4. The evidence on record indicates that the deceased was

ran over by a truck that was being taken in reverse direction.

On due investigation, the truck driver has been charged for being

responsible to the accident and consequential death. This Court has

no reason to find it to be a case of contributory negligence.

5. On the question of quantum of compensation, the

deceased was said to be a professional driver. For want of concrete

evidence of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly

considered it notionally at Rs.3,000/-. True, the claim was filed by

the parents of the deceased and the Tribunal, therefore, ought to

have deducted one half of the income of the deceased towards his

personal and living expenses. Close reading of the impugned

judgment and award indicates that the Tribunal has not granted

compensation on account of future prospects. Moreover, no amount

has been awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of

consortium and love and affection. It is reiterated that the

4 fa.142.07

respondents/claimants can point out that the Tribunal ought to have

granted compensation under these heads as well. In totality, the

compensation awarded under the impugned award is justified.

6. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

and ors., (2017)16 SCC 680 was not in the field when the

impugned award was passed. The Tribunal ought to have

granted compensation on account of future prospects and

under other conventional heads as well. If one half of the

income of the deceased is deducted towards his personal and

living expenses, 40% is to be added towards future prospects

and if the compensation is awarded under other conventional

heads, the quantum of compensation awarded under the

impugned award would be justified. The same is just and

reasonable one.

7. In the circumstances, no case is made out for

interference with the impugned judgment and award. In the

result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

5 fa.142.07

8. The amount in deposit, if any, with this Court or the

Tribunal, be paid to the claimants with interest accrued thereon.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]

KBP