Bombay High Court
Ushabai Suryabhan Bhand And Ors vs Machindra Maruti Gawali And Ors on 4 October, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
(1) fa-677-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.677 OF 2004
1. Smt. Ushabai Suryabhan Bhand,
Age: 30 years, Occ. Nil.
2. Subhash Suryabhan Bhand,
Age: 13 years, Occ. Education.
3. Manisha Suryabhan Bhand,
Age: 11 years, Occ. Education.
4. Vikas Suryabhan Bhand,
Age: 9 years, Occ. Nil.
All R/o Dhangarwadi,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Appellant No.1 is legal guardian of Appellant
Nos.2 to 4
Versus
1. Machindra Maruti Gawali
Age: 36 years, Occ. Driver.
R/o. Dhangarwadi,
Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Bhaskar Madhav Lahamage,
Age: Major, Occ. Owner,
R/o. Dasre Nagar, in front of
Aurangabad Naka, Nagar-Aurangabad Road.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
(Summons be served on its Branch Manager,
Ahmednagar).
4. Rambhau Malu Bhand,
Age: 69 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Dhangarwadi,
Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
(Respondent Nos.1 to
3 Orig. Opponents and
Respondent No.4 is
Orig. Claimant No.4)
...
Mr. R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. M. L. Paithane h/f Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar,
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2022 17:00:28 :::
(2) fa-677-2004
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. B. Gatne, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.
RESERVED ON : 07.09.2022.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.10.2022.
JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Dige, J.):-
1. By this appeal the appellants/Orig.
claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants that, the deceased was working
as a cleaner on the offending truck and he was
getting monthly salary of Rs.2000/- alongwith
Bhatta of Rs.20/- per day, but Tribunal has
considered Rs.1000/- as monthly salary. It is on
lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded future
prospects and consortium amount to the appellants.
Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.
3. It is the contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents that, initially the
appellants have mentioned in the claim petition
that the pay of deceased was Rs.1000/- per month
plus Rs.20/- per day as Bhatta. Thereafter,
amendment was carried out and it enhanced to
Rs.2000/- per month. No evidence was produced on
record to show that the deceased was getting
Rs.2000/- per month as salary and Rs.20/- per day
as Bhatta. Hence, income considered by the
Tribunal is proper. The learned counsel further
submits that, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is proper as it is awarded on the basis of
(3) fa-677-2004
the evidence laid before the Tribunal. Hence,
requested to dismiss the Appeal.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel.
Perused the judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal.
5. The issues involved in this Appeal are
monthly income of the deceased was not properly
considered, future prospects and consortium amount
are not awarded. The Tribunal has considered
Rs.1000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The
deceased was working as cleaner on the offending
truck. When the truck was proceeding from the area
of Chinchodi-Patil Shivar, some branches of the
trees were leaning towards the road. Therefore,
the driver of the offending truck insisted the
deceased to look whether said branches could touch
the top of the truck. The driver should have
stopped the vehicle and asked the deceased to look
towards the branches of the tree, when deceased
leaned outside of the truck, all of a sudden the
driver applied brakes and due to which deceased
fell from the offending truck on the road and
sustained injuries. In the claim petition,
initially the income of the deceased was mentioned
as Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, by way of amendment, it
was mentioned as Rs.2000/-. The Tribunal has
observed that, no evidence is produced on record to
show that, the deceased was getting Rs.2000/- per
month as salary as a cleaner. I do not find
infirmity in the observation of the Tribunal. The
(4) fa-677-2004
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1000/- is
proper. The Tribunal has awarded total sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (inclusive of NFL).
6. The issue in respect of the future
prospects is concerned, the Tribunal has not
awarded future prospects. As per view of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
appellants are entitle for 40% additional amount as
future prospects. As the deceased was below 40
years of age and self employed.
7. The Tribunal has not awarded the
consortium amount. The appellants are dependents
on the deceased. Hence, the appellants are also
entitled for consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each
as per the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130.
8. In view of the above, the appellants are
entitled for the following compensation:
Monthly income of deceased = Rs.1000/- pm
Yearly income to as = Rs.1000 x 12
= Rs.12,000/-
The deceased was 27 yrs old,
so the multiplier is 15
1/3rd deduction towards personal
expenses = Rs.09,000/-
Loss of Dependency is 9000 X 15 = 1,35,000/-
future prospects i.e. 40% of
1,35,000/- = 50,000/-
(5) fa-677-2004
Loss of Consortium of wife = 15,000/-
Loss of love and affection i.e.
parental compensation to 3 children = 1,20,000/-
-------------
= 3,20,000/-
Amount Awarded - 1,50,700/-
-------------
Rs.1,69,300/-
9. In view of the above, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- @ 6% interest
on the enhanced amount from the date of
filing of the petition till its realization.
(iii) The appellants are not entitled for interest
on the 40% future prospects i.e. Rs.50,000/-
and consortium amount of Rs.1,20,000/- i.e.
total Rs.1,70,000/- till 31st December 2009.
The appellants are entitled for interest on
these amounts from 1st January 2010.
(iv) The respondents are directed to deposit
enhanced amount alongwith interest within
six weeks from receipt of the order.
(v) The appellants are permitted to withdraw
deposited amount.
(6) fa-677-2004
(vi) Deficit Court fees, if any, be paid.
(vii) Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(S. G. DIGE)
JUDGE
Devendra/October-2022
