Bombay High Court
Suhas Suresh Suryawanshi vs Smt. Rupali Santosh Vaidya And ... on 1 September, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6845 OF 2014
Suhas s/o Suresh Suryawanshi,
Age 35 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. Rupali w/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Kranti Nagar, Patoda,
District Beed.
2. Renuka d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 19 years, Occ. Education
3. Dhanashree d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 13 months, Occ. Nil
4. Bhagya s/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 7 years, Occ. Nil.
Appellant Nos.3 and 4 are minors and
they are under guardianship of their
mother appellant No.1 Rupali
5. Kesharbai w/o Popatrao Vaidya,
Age 67 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o as above.
6. Popatrao Yashwantrao Vaidya
(Deleted as Dead)
7. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
through its Branch Manager,
Branch office at Hazari Chambers,
Station Road, Aurangabad
District Aurangabad ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:33:22 :::
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 2 ::
.......
Shri Umakant U. Wagh, Advocate for appellants
Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5
Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No.7
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1557 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8829 OF 2014
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
through its Divisional Manager
Aurangabad Divisional Office
Hazari Chambers, Station Road,
Aurangabad ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. Rupali w/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 35 years, Occ. Service,
2. Renuka d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 17 years, Occ. Education
3. Dhanashree d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 13 years, Occ. Education
4. Bhagya s/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 8 years, Occ. Nil.
Appellant Nos.2 to 4 minor at the
time of filing of claim petition, hence
through natural guardian
mother appellant No.1
5. Kesharbai w/o Popatrao Vaidya,
Age 67 years, Occ. Pensioner,
Respondents No.1 to 5 R/o Kranti Nagar,
Patoda, District Beed
6. Popatrao Yashwantrao Vaidya
Age 60 years, Occ. Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:33:22 :::
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 3 ::
R/o Kranti Nagar, Patoda, Dist. Beed
(Deleted as Dead)
7. Suhas s/o Suresh Suryawanshi,
Age Major, Occ. Vehicle owner
R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar ...RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for appellant
Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5
Shri Umakant U. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.7
.......
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2139 OF 2021 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1557 OF 2014
1. Smt. Rupali w/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 44 years, Occ. Service,
2. Renuka d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 24 years, Occ. Education
3. Dhanashree d/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 19 years, Occ. Education
4. Pranav s/o Santosh Vaidya,
Age 15 years, Occ. Nil.
5. Kesharbai w/o Popatrao Vaidya,
Age 67 years, Occ. Household,
6. Popatrao Yashwantrao Vaidya
Age 60 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Kranti Nagar, Patoda, Dist. Beed
(Deceased Deleted in Trial Court)
All R/o Kranti Nagar, Patoda,
District Beed ...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:33:22 :::
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 4 ::
through its Divisional Manager
Aurangabad Divisional Office
Hazari Chambers, Station Road,
Aurangabad
2. Suhas s/o Suresh Suryawanshi,
Age Major, Occ. Vehicle owner
R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar ...RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicants
Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Umakant U. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.2
.......
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2021
JUDGMENT:
Admit. With the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. Both these appeals, since interconnected, are
being decided by this common judgment.
3. The challenge in both these appeals is to the
judgment and award dated 7/5/2014, passed by Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Beed in Motor
Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.168/2007. The appellant,
in First Appeal No.1557/2014, National Insurance Company
Ltd. (original opponent No.2 in the claim petition before the
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 5 ::
Tribunal) challenges the impugned judgment and award on
quantum. While the appellant in First Appeal No.1308/2014
(original opponent No.1 in the claim petition before the
Tribunal), the vehicle owner, takes an exception to the
impugned award directing him to pay simple interest @ 7.5%
p.a. for the period 21/1/2010 to 7/5/2014.
4. Almost all the facts are not in dispute. Deceased
Santosh Vaidya died in an accident involving motor vehicle.
His legal representatives (respondent No.1 to 6), therefore,
preferred the MACP No.168/2007 for compensation. It was
allowed on 21/1/2010, absolving the appellant Insurance
Company of its liability to pay compensation, since the
Tribunal found the owner of the vehicle to have failed to prove
the driver of the offending vehicle to have had valid and
effective driving licence to drive the same at the relevant
time. The owner of the vehicle (appellant in First Appeal
No.1308/2014), therefore, challenged the judgment and
award dated 2/1/2010 in First Appeal No.679/2011. This
Court allowed the said appeal vide order dated 16/11/2013,
setting aside the judgment and award dated 21/1/2010,
remanding the matter back to the Tribunal with a liberty to
the parties to adduce additional evidence and then the
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 6 ::
Tribunal to decide the claim petition expeditiously.
5. The Tribunal, after remand of the matter back to
it, passed the judgment and award impugned in both these
appeals.
6. Heard. Shri A.B. Gatne, learned counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company would submit that, the matter
was remanded on the limited point of allowing the parties to
adduce evidence on the point of driving licence only. All other
issues were already settled under the impugned judgment
and award dated 21/1/2010. There was no scope for the
Tribunal to reopen other issues. On the same evidence, the
Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation which was
granted by it under the judgment and award dated
21/1/2010. The claimants had not preferred appeal against
the judgment and award dated 21/1/2010. The same,
therefore, attained finality so far as regards the quantum of
compensation awarded thereunder. According to learned
counsel, notional income of the deceased was considered at
Rs.3000/- per month. There, therefore, was no question to
make addition thereto on account of future prospects. He
would further submit that, for loss of consortium and other
conventional heads, a hefty amount has been awarded as
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 7 ::
compensation. On the question of appeal preferred by the
vehicle owner, the learned counsel would submit that, had he
(vehicle owner) placed before the Tribunal the driving licence
in the first round of hearing, there would not have been a
reason for preferring the appeal against the award dated
21/1/2010, which remained pending for little over four years,
imposing a liability to pay interest for the period spent in
appeal only at the instance of the vehicle owner. According to
learned counsel, the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in
directing the vehicle owner (appellant in First Appeal
No.1308/2014) to exclusively bear/ pay interest for the period
21/1/2010 to 7/5/2014.
7. Shri Wagh, learned counsel for the vehicle owner
(appellant in First Appeal No.1308/2014 ) would submit that,
the details of the driving licence had already been placed
before the Tribunal in the first round of hearing of the
petition. There were, however, no details regarding duration
of validity of the driving licence. According to him, from the
details of the driving licence, which were before the Tribunal,
the duration of its validity could have been ascertained in
view of Section 14(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Vide order dated 16/11/2013, the judgment and
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 8 ::
order dated 21/1/2010 was set aside, remanding the matter
back to the Tribunal with liberty to the parties to adduce
evidence. As such, the award dated 21/1/2010 stood set
aside in its entirety. The learned counsel for the appellant
Insurance Company, therefore, could not be heard to say that
since the claimants did not prefer any appeal from the
judgment and award dated 21/1/2010, the same attained
finality so far as regards quantum of compensation awarded
thereunder.
9. The learned counsel then came around to agree to
work out the amount of compensation in terms of the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ].
10. The Tribunal, considering the notional income of
the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, made addition of 50%
thereof towards future prospects. It also granted a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the widow on account of loss of consortium.
Equal amount has been awarded towards loss of care and
guidance of minor children. While a sum of Rs.25,000/- has
been granted towards funeral expenses. The sum of
Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the mother of the deceased
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 9 ::
towards loss of love and affection. For loss of estate, a sum
of Rs.5000/- came to be awarded. Thus, the total amount of
compensation was worked out at Rs.9,43,500/-.
11. The deceased was serving with a hotel. For want
of there being a concrete evidence of his salary, the Tribunal
rightly considered a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as his
notional income. Post passing of the impugned award, the
judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) came to be delivered.
In terms of paragraph No.59.4 of Pranay Sethi's judgment
(supra), in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
the warrant where the deceased was below 40 years of age.
In view of the same, 40% of the notional income of the
deceased needs to be added thereto towards future
prospects. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.4200/-. Necessarily, his annual income would be
Rs.50,400/- (4200 x 12). Considering the number of
dependents, the Tribunal rightly made deduction of one fourth
of the annual income of the deceased, towards his personal
and living expenses had he been alive. After such deduction,
the amount comes to Rs.37,800/-. Considering the age of
the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 10 ::
17. As such, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,42,600/-
(Rs.37,800/- x 17).
12. Compensation under other heads needs to be
granted in terms of paragraph No.59.8 of the judgment in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), which reads as under :
"59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the
rate of 10% in every three years."
13. In view of the same, I am inclined to award a sum
of Rs.40,000/- to the widow of the deceased towards loss of
consortium. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, a
sum of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded. On account of loss of
love and affection, the children and mother of the deceased
are granted a sum of Rs.30,000/-.
This way, the total amount of compensation comes
to Rs.7,42,600/-.
14. Admittedly, the particulars of the driving licence
produced before the Tribunal in the first round of hearing did
not disclose the period of its validity. The Tribunal, therefore,
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 11 ::
absolved the appellant Insurance Company of its liability to
pay compensation. After remand of the matter, in view of
order dated 16/11/2013, in First Appeal No.679/2011, the
Tribunal saddled the vehicle owner (appellant in First Appeal
No.1308/2014) with an exclusive liability to pay interest on
the amount of compensation for the period from 21/1/2010 to
7/5/2014 for the reason that the said delay occasioned
because of negligence on the part of the vehicle owner.
15. Although the particulars of the driving licence
before the Tribunal did not disclose the exact date upto which
the same was valid, the learned counsel was right in relying
on Section 14(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. For better
appreciation, the same is reproduced below :-
"14. Currency of licences to drive motor
vehicles :-
(1) . . . . .
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under
this Act shall,
(a) ....
(b) in the case of any other licence,
(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either
originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained
the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the
case may be, renewal thereof, -
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 12 ::
(A) be effective for a period of twenty years
from the date of such issue or renewal.
. . . . . . . . ."
16. The learned counsel was right in submitting that,
ignorance of law is no excuse. From the clause (A) aforesaid,
it is crystal clear that the validity of the driving licence is for a
period of twenty years from the date of its issue (clause 7 of
Exh. 30 - report about the Motor Vehicle's accident) discloses
that date of issue of the driving licence is 19/8/2003.
In terms of the aforesaid provision, the said driving licence
was valid for a period of twenty years next after 19/8/2003.
The same period would expire on 17/8/2023. The accident
took place on 13/8/2006 i.e. during the currency of driving
licence. As such, the Tribunal in the first round of hearing
itself ought not to have absolved the appellant Insurance
Company of its liability. Be that as it may. Had the Tribunal
referred to the aforesaid provision at the first instance itself,
the vehicle owner would not have been required to prefer
First Appeal No.679/2011, wherein time of four years was
spent. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have
saddled the vehicle owner with liability to exclusively pay
simple interest on the aforesaid amount for a period of four
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 13 ::
years from 21/1/2010 to 7/5/2014. The said term in the
impugned award, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
17. In the result, the Appeal No.1308/2014 preferred
by the vehicle owner succeeds.
18. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are
allowed in terms of the following order :-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.1557/2014 is allowed, substituting
the amount of compensation of Rs.9,43,500/- by
Rs.7,42,600/-.
(ii) First Appeal No.1308/2014 is allowed, setting aside
the clause in the impugned award directing the
respondent No.1 to pay simple interest @ 7.5% p.a.
on the amount of compensation from 21/1/2010 till
7/5/2014.
(iii) Rest of the terms of the award to stand unaltered.
(iv) The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant
in First Appeal No.1308/2014 (vehicle owner)
towards compulsory statutory deposit be paid to Sai
Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha, Aurangabad along
with interest accrued thereon.
First Appeal No.1308/2014 with
First Appeal No.1557/2014
:: 14 ::
(v) The amount in deposit with this Court or the Tribunal
be paid to the claimants/ petitioners along with
interest accrued thereon in terms of the modified
award, and the balance amount be paid back to the
Insurance Company.
(vi) In view of disposal of First Appeals, pending Civil
Applications are disposed of.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
