Bombay High Court
Madhukar Chudaman Jadhav And Ors vs Sunil Waman Pawar And Ors on 24 January, 2024
-1-
fa4162.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4162 OF 2016
1. Madhukar Chudaman Jadhav
age 64 years, occ. Pensioner
2. Durgadas (Pradeep) Madhukar Jadhav
age 33 years, occ. Private Service
3. Dr. Prashant (Sudhir) Madhukar Jadhav
age 30 years, occ. Medical Practitioner
4. Sumati Madhukar Jadhav
age 18 years, occ. Education
All r/o Plot No. 27, Mauli nagar
Behind Hotel Premier, Vikas Colony
Jamner Road, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal
Dist. Jalgaon. .. Appellants
Versus
1. Sunil Waman Pawar
age 31 years, occ. Driver
r/o Pimprisekam, Dipnagar
Tq Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon
2. Nareshkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
R/o Super D, 12/5, B.T.P.S. Colony
Dipnagar
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
299, Bairam Peth, Behind Sai Baba Market
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents
Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. A. B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
-2-
fa4162.16.odt
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act taking exception to the judgment and award passed in MACP No.
236/2011 on 13th July, 2016.
2. A very short point involved in the present appeal is as to
whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting any other amount
from the gross salary except professional tax and income tax and
whether the impugned award deserves modification by granting
future prospects and consortium.
3. The facts in the case are not disputed. Deceased
Hemalata was proceeding on her scooty on 6 th May, 2011. When she
came to the spot of incident, a tanker bearing registration No. MH 19
Z 3292 came in rash and negligent manner and gave forceful dash to
the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the said accident, deceased
sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
fa4162.16.odt
4. The claim was resisted by insurer whereas the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle failed to contest the claim. Claimants
were able to prove negligence on the part of the driver of offending
vehicle in causing said accident. Claimants examined Gajanan
Wankhede, Education Officer serving with Panchayat Samiti,
Bodwad. This witness produced salary certificate of the deceased for
the month of February, 2011, paid in March 2011 up till June 2011
(Exhibits 46 to 49).
5. As per the documentary evidence on record, the deceased
was drawing gross salary of Rs. 28,965/- and after deduction of
professional tax, income tax, LIC, GPF, insurance etc. to the tune of
Rs. 11,450/-, the net salary of deceased was Rs. 17,515/-. It is
settled law that except for statutory deductions i.e. income tax and
professional tax, no other deductions could have been done from the
salary of the deceased. The evidence on record indicates that
professional tax and income tax per month was Rs. 400/-. Thus,
only amount of Rs. 400/- was permitted to be deducted from the
gross salary of the deceased. Thus, deducting amount of Rs. 400/-
from the gross salary of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs.
28,565/-. The deceased was aged about 55 years and hence
fa4162.16.odt
multiplier of 11 shall apply. There is no evidence on record to
indicate that except claimant No. 1, who is retired person, other
claimants were dependant on the income of the deceased. The
learned Tribunal, therefore, deducted ½ amount from net salary
towards personal expenditure of deceased. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, said deduction is fond appropriate. After
deducting ½ amount towards personal expenditure, dependency on
loss of income comes to Rs. 14,282/-. Applying the multiplier of 11,
the amount comes to Rs. 18,85,224/- (14,282 x 12 x 11). The
Tribunal has further held notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month
for remaining three years period. The said finding recorded by the
Tribunal is inconsistent with the settled position of law. As per the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270, a
salaried person above age of 50 years would be entitled for additional
15% towards future prospects. The same is not considered by the
Tribunal and hence, it needs to be treated as income of the deceased.
Thus, the total income after adding 15% towards future prospects
comes to Rs. 21,68,000/-.
fa4162.16.odt
6. The Tribunal has also not granted consortium to the
claimants. Irrespective of the age of claimants, loss by death of
deceased as wife and mother deserves to be considered and filial
consortium becomes payable and hence all claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each. They are also entitled to funeral
expenses at Rs. 15,000/- and loss of estate at Rs. 40,000/-. Thus,
the total amount of compensation payable to claimants is
Rs. 23,83,000/-. (21,68,000 + 1,60,000 + 15,000 + 40,000).
7. In view of above discussion, appeal is partly allowed to
the extent of enhancement of compensation as above. Rest of the
judgment and decree to remain unchanged.
8. Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands
disposed of.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
