Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Varsha Sandeep Sabale And Ors on 2 January, 2024
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2024:BHC-AS:47
1 First Appeal No. 853 of 2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.853 of 2018
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., )
Divisional Office, Station Road, Near Parvati )
Multiplex, Rajaram Road, Kolhapur - 416 601 )...APPELLANT
Vs.
1. SMT. VARSHA SANDEEP SABALE )
Age 30 years, Occupation Nil )
)
2. MASTER UDAY SANDEEP SABALE )
Age 6 years, Occupation Nil )
)
3. KUM. MUKTA SANDEEP SABALE )
Age 2 years, Occupation Nil )
)
4. SHRI. MARUTI BHIMAJI SABALE )
Age 62 years, Occupation Nil )
)
5. SOU. SANJANA MARUTI SABALE )
Age 57 years, Occupation Nil )
)
6. KUM. SUNANDA MARUTI SABALE )
Age 27 years, Occupation Education )
)
All R/o. At Post Dimbe, Taluka Ambegaon, )
District Pune. )
)
7. SHRI. TANAJI B. GAIKWAD )
Age Major, Occupation Business )
306, A HSG Society, Malwadi, )
A/P. Pulachi Shiroli, Taluka Hatkananagale )
District Kolhapur )
AVK 1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 08:50:42 :::
2 First Appeal No. 853 of 2018.doc
8. SHRI ARVIND VASANT BUJARE )
Age Major, Occupation Driver )
R/o. Kasaarwada, Taluka Radhanagari )
District Kolhapur )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Ketan Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Yuvraj Narvankar, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 4 to 6.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON : 25th JULY, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd JANUARY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the "M.V. Act") challenging the judgment and award dated 4 th
September, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur
(the "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.644 of 2013 partly
allowing the Claim Petition of the Respondents No. 1 to 6 and jointly and
severally directing the Appellant and the Respondent No.7 to deposit an
amount of Rs.59,69,913/- inclusive of amount of compensation under 'no-
fault' liability along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Tribunal further
held that out of the total compensation, (i) Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to
AVK 2 of 23
Respondent No.1. Out of it, 50% amount to be kept in fixed deposit
scheme in her name in any nationalized bank of her choice for a period of
five years, (ii) Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to Respondent No.2. Out of it
75% amount to be kept in fixed deposit scheme in his name in any
nationalized bank till he attains majority, (iii) Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to
Respondent No.3. Out of it, 75% amount to be kept in fixed deposit
scheme in her name in any nationalized bank till she attains majority, (iv)
Rs.5,00,000/- each to be paid to Respondents No. 4 and 5, (v)
Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to Respondent No.6 and (vi) the balance amount
and interest to be paid to all Respondents No.1 to 6 equally.
2. By an order dated 9th July, 2018 in Civil Application No. 770 of
2016 in the said appeal, a delay of 53 days caused in filing the appeal was
condoned. Vide order of this Court dated 1 st March, 2019, the appeal was
admitted.
3. The brief facts in this matter are as follows. That on 26 th July, 2013
at about 2:30 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., Sandeep Maruti Sabale was proceeding
from Shiroli to Kolhapur on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
registration No. MH-09/BD-7133. When he reached near the spot of the
AVK 3 of 23
accident, one Tavera car bearing registration No. MH-10/AG-0885 owned
by Respondent No.7, duly insured with the Appellant and driven by
Respondent No.8, came in high speed, rashly and negligently, and gave a
dash to the motorcycle of Sandeep Maruti Sabale, thereby he fell down
and sustained multiple injuries and died before treatment. Since the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.8,
he was prosecuted by MIDC Shiroli Police vide C.R. No.85/2013 and
ultimately after investigation, he has been chargesheeted.
4. The Respondents No. 1 to 6 claimed to be the legal heirs and
dependents of the deceased Sandeep Maruti Sabale who was 33 years of
age at the time of the accident. The deceased was serving as Sub-Inspector
in State Excise Department of the State of Maharashtra and was earning a
salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The Respondents No. 1 to 6 have claimed
that due to his demise they have sustained pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary loss and claimed a compensation of Rs.76,72,500/- from the
Appellant and Respondents No. 7 and 8 under various heads.
5. The Appellant and the Respondent No.8, driver, filed their written
statements denying all the allegations. They denied the involvement of the
AVK 4 of 23
offending Tavera vehicle in the accident. Further they contended that
assuming that the offending Tavera vehicle was involved in the said
accident, the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent
driving of Respondent No.8. They further denied the age, service, salary
and future prospects of the deceased and submitted that the claim is false,
excessive and sought for it to be dismissed. The Respondent No.7 being
the owner of the offending Tavera vehicle, despite opportunity did not file
his Written Statement.
6. The Tribunal examined the Affidavit of Respondent No.1, the
examination of Witness No.2, Sanjay Jaysing Patil, Dy. Superintendent
State Excise, Kolhapur who proved service book and relevant documents
and salary certificate of deceased, certified copies of police papers such as
wardi report, spot panchnama, complaint, inquest panchnama, post
mortem report, death certificate, chargesheet against Respondent No.8
driver, First Information Report (FIR) and certified statements of witnesses
examined by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
7. The Tribunal held that the claim of the Respondent No.1 that the
accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
AVK 5 of 23
Tavera vehicle is duly corroborated through the contents of complaint,
chargesheet and statements of eye witnesses examined by the
Investigating Officer. After due investigation, the police station at MIDC
Shiroli submitted a chargesheet against the Respondent No.8 driver for
offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) and for offences punishable under Sections 184 and 134(1)(b)
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal therefore held that the prosecution
of Respondent No.8 driver for the said accident was caused only because
of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.8. The Tribunal relied
on case law wherein Courts have held that when driver of offending
vehicle is facing criminal trial prima facie it can be presumed that, he was
responsible for the accident. The Tribunal recorded that no evidence was
adduced on behalf of the Appellant and Respondents No. 7 and 8. The
Tribunal held that it was incumbent on the part of the Respondents No. 7
and 8 to prove as to where the offending Tavera vehicle was at the
relevant time of the accident. The Tribunal held that there was no
contrary evidence to show what the Respondents No. 7 and 8 have done
after knowing that the offending Tavera vehicle and Respondent No.8
have allegedly been falsely involved in the case of the accident. Therefore
the Tribunal held that the accident in question took place due to rash and
AVK 6 of 23
negligent driving of the offending Tavera vehicle by Respondent No.8
driver, which was owned by Respondent No.7 and duly insured with the
Appellant. The Tribunal further held that undisputedly the insurance
policy of the offending Tavera vehicle was in force on the date of the
accident. The Tribunal held that the Respondents No. 1 to 6 were entitled
to get compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal determined
the same keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decisions in the cases of State of Haryana and
another v. Jasbir Kaur and others 1 and Rajesh and other v. Rajbeer Singh
and other2 and Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza v. Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service3.
9. The Tribunal held that undisputedly, the date of birth of the
deceased Sandeep was 12/12/1980 and therefore his age on the date of
the accident was 32 years and in view of the observations in the case of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 4 multiplier of 17
would be applicable. The Tribunal held that the deceased was having
1 III(2003)ACC 90 (SC)
2 2013 ACJ 1403
3 2013 ACJ 2733
4 2009 ACJ 1298 (Supreme Court)
AVK 7 of 23
remaining service of 25 years and was in permanent government
employment and therefore as per the ratio laid down in the case of Vimal
Kumar and others v. Kishore Dan and others5, in the Tribunal's opinion
50% of amount of income of the deceased is to be added towards future
prospects in order to assess his monthly income. After adding 50% to his
monthly income and deducting income tax from the deceased's annual net
income, the Tribunal calculated annual loss of income to be Rs.4,27,052/-.
Considering the strength of dependency of six members, the Tribunal held
that 1/4th amount is required to be deducted from the deceased's annual
income towards personal expenditure of deceased and calculated actual
loss of dependency to come to Rs.3,20,289/-. The Tribunal then applied
the multiplier of 17 to said actual loss of dependency and held that the
total loss of income and dependency comes to Rs.54,44,913/-. The
Tribunal held that in addition in view of the ratio laid down in the case of
Rajesh and other v. Rajbeer Singh and other(supra) , the Respondents No.1
to 6 are entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium to Respondent No.2, Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss to
estate, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor
5 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6(Supreme Court)
AVK 8 of 23
children. The Tribunal therefore held that the Respondents No.1 to 6 were
entitled to get compensation of Rs.56,69,913/- inclusive of amount paid
under no fault liability, if any, along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of the Petition till the date of realization to be paid in the manner
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereinabove by the Appellant and the
Respondent No.7 owner, jointly and severally.
10. The Respondents No.1 to 6 accepted the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal and did not challenge the award.
11. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Impugned Judgment and Award
partly allowing the Claim Petition of the Respondents No. 1 to 6 and
awarding a sum of Rs.56,69,913/- including amount of 'no-fault' liability,
if any, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss
to estate, loss of care and guidance for minor children from the Appellant
and Respondent No.7 who were held to be jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% from the
date of the petition till realization of the entire amount, the Appellant has
preferred this Appeal as mentioned above.
AVK 9 of 23
12. The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Judgment and Award
essentially on two grounds (A) the alleged involvement of the offending
Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MH-10-AG-0885 in the accident
and (B) on the quantum of compensation.
13. On the first issue of alleged involvement of the offending Tavera
vehicle, the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the Wardi report lodged on the date of the accident was by a person who
was not a witness to the accident and the FIR was lodged on 13 th August,
2013 which was 15 days after the accident which goes to show that there
is a possibility of the offending Tavera vehicle being falsely implicated in
the accident. That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Appellant as
well as the Respondent No.8 driver categorically denied the involvement
of the offending Tavera vehicle in their Written Statements and therefore
the Tribunal ought to have framed an issue and opportunity of leading
evidence should have been given to the Appellant to rebut the allegation
and contention regarding the alleged involvement of the offending Tavera
vehicle. That the Tribunal erred in solely relying on the statement of the
Respondent No.1 and the police documentary record to come to a
conclusion on the involvement of the offending Tavera vehicle. That the
AVK 10 of 23
Tribunal ought to have appreciated that it was the duty of the
Respondents No.1 to 6 to examine the eye witnesses to the accident
named in the charge-sheet and without any cross examination on this
point the Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending Tavera vehicle
was involved in the accident.
14. Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submitted that
the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and High Courts in several judgments have reiterated the basic principle
that the burden is on the claimant to prove the accident involvement and
negligence by leading cogent evidence and that in the present matter the
claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle by leading
cogent evidence and therefore the burden never shifted on to the
Appellant. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the Respondents No.1 to 6
have relied only on the police papers and they have not examined the
Investigating Officer nor the five eye witnesses whose statements were
recorded before the police to prove the involvement of the vehicle. Mr.
Joshi relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Kalpana
Kothari v. Santosh Jangam6 and New India Assurance v. Laxman s/o
Dadarao Karpe and others7 in support of his contentions.
6 2020(2) Mh.L.J. 561.
AVK 11 of 23
15. On the issue of quantum of compensation, it was contended on
behalf of the Appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the
Respondents No.4 and 5 being father and mother of the deceased
respectively were doing agricultural work and Respondent No.6 being the
sister of the deceased was married a year back and the Tribunal wrongly
calculated the deduction towards dependency to be 3/4th and it should
have been only 2/3rd keeping in mind the widow and the two minor
children of the deceased. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought
to have appreciated that the age of the deceased was 33 years and
therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered the multiplier of 16
instead of 17 which was wrongly applied by the Tribunal. Learned counsel
for the Appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) , Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan8 and National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi9 in
support of his contention. That the general damages of Rs.5,25,000/- was
on the higher side. That the Tribunal failed to consider the decision of this
Court in the case of New India Assurance v. Alpa Shah10 where it was held
that future prospects cannot be granted as a matter of right and that no
cogent evidence was adduced to avail the benefit of future prospects and
8 2013(9) SCC 65
9 2017 (16) SCC 680.
10 2014(2) Mh.L.J.17
AVK 12 of 23
therefore the Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to Respondents
No.1 to 6.
16. Mr. Joshi concluded by submitting that as far as the compensation
granted under the other heads/non-pecuniary damages, the same should
be granted in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi (supra) , Magma
General Insurance v. Nanu Ram11and New India Assurance v. Somwati12.
17. On the other hand Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, learned counsel for the
Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6, submitted that substantial documentary
evidence in the form of Wardi report, Spot Panchnama, Inquest
Panchnama, post-mortem report, chargesheet, FIR, statements of
witnesses, etc. was produced to establish the involvement of the vehicle.
Mr. Narvankar submitted that on the contrary and as recorded by the
Tribunal in paragraph 8 of its order, no evidence was adduced by the
Appellant and Respondent No.8 to prove the alleged non-involvement of
the vehicle. Mr. Narvankar submits that it is a consistent judicial view that
the initial burden on the claimants to prove the involvement of the vehicle
11 2018(18) SCC 130
12 2020(9) SCC 644
AVK 13 of 23
is discharged when a reference is made to the police documents including
the FIR and the charge-sheet and the onus of proof then shifts on the
insurance company or the owner of the vehicle to rebut the presumption
drawn by virtue of the police papers. Mr. Narvankar submitted that in fact
in the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Respondent No.8 driver, the
involvement of the vehicle was admitted. He further submitted that the
proceedings under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary
in nature and the burden of proof required in these cases cannot be
equated with the burden of proof required in a criminal trial.
18. On the issue of quantum of compensation, Mr. Narvankar submitted
that the deceased was working as a Sub-Inspector in the State Excise
Department and was 32 years of age at the time of the accident which fact
has been deposed to by his employer whose evidence was unshaken in the
cross examination. Mr. Narvankar submits that the multiplier of 16 would
be applicable to the present case in the light of the decision in the case of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others (supra) . Mr.
Narvankar also agrees that the compensation granted under the other
heads/non-pecuniary will have to be in accordance with the decisions in
the cases of National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi (supra) , Magma General
AVK 14 of 23
Insurance v. Nanu Ram (supra) and New India Assurance v. Somwati
(supra).
19. I have heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
Narvankar, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 and with
their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings in the
matter and considered the rival submissions.
20. On the first issue being the alleged involvement of the offending
Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MH-10-AG-0885 in the accident,
the Tribunal has clearly held that the claim of the Respondent No.1 that
the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending Tavera vehicle is duly corroborated through the contents of
complaint, chargesheet and statements of eye witnesses examined by the
Investigating Officer. The Tribunal also held that there was no contrary
evidence to show what the Respondents No. 7 and 8 have done after
knowing that the offending Tavera vehicle and Respondent No.8 have
allegedly been falsely involved in the case of the accident.
21. In this regard, this Court has examined the decision of the Tribunal,
the Written Statements of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 8 driver,
AVK 15 of 23
cause of death certificate of deceased and the police papers being the FIR,
Jawab, Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, Accident Report, Arrest form,
Tapas tipan and Chargesheet in the matter. From the police papers it is
clear that the death of Sandeep Maruti Sabale was caused by the
offending Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MH-10/AG-0885 giving
a dash to his motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-09-BD-7133 from
behind and then one of the wheels of the offending Tavera vehicle passing
over the head of the deceased Sandeep Maruti Sabale.
22. The Appellant and the Respondent No.8 have clearly been unable
to produce any evidence to the contrary.
23. The Appellant's claim that the Wardi report lodged on the date of
the accident was by a person who was not a witness to the accident and
the FIR was lodged 15 days after the accident which goes to show that
there is a possibility of the offending Tavera vehicle being falsely
implicated in the accident is not supported by any evidence, particularly
when the charge-sheet is filed against Respondent No.8 driver of the
offending Tavera vehicle after the investigation of the involvement of the
offending Tavera vehicle in the accident. In fact, in Paragraph 12 of the
AVK 16 of 23
Written Statement of Respondent No.8 driver, he has alleged that the
accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased
and that it was the deceased who dashed the offending Tavera vehicle,
thereby admitting the involvement of the offending Tavera vehicle in the
accident. Further, it is clear from Paragraph 8 of the Impugned Judgment
that although the Appellant and Respondent No.8 came up with the
defence of non-involvement of the offending vehicle, they did not step into
the witness box to deny the involvement of the offending Tavera vehicle in
the accident nor did they prove that the offending Tavera vehicle was
elsewhere at the time of the accident. Therefore the Appellant's claim that
the denial in the Written Statements of the Appellant and the Respondent
No.8 ought to have been considered and an opportunity of leading
evidence ought to have been given to them is not borne out by their
conduct before the Tribunal.
24. It would be relevant here to quote the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal
and others13 wherein it has been held that Accident Claim Tribunals must
take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and
13 1980 A.C.J. 435
AVK 17 of 23
owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the
circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb
to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
25. It would also be important to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati alias Rajjo and Others v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 14 the relevant paragraphs of
which are quoted as under:
"19. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata v.Satbir15, this
Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating to
motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to
prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial.
The Court must keep this distinction in mind.
20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the
accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to
award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in
Sunita v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation16 and Kusum
Lata (supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a
criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident
compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be
borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and
not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt
which is followed in criminal cases".
14 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699
15(2011) 3 SCC 646
16 (2020) 13 SCC 486.
AVK 18 of 23
26. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the Tribunal is
correct in holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending Tavera vehicle by Respondent No.8
which was owned by the Respondent No.7 and duly insured with the
Appellant which insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident
and that the Respondents No.1 to 6 were entitled to get compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
27. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that
since the age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 32 years and
in view of the observations in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others (supra) multiplier of 17 would be applicable. The
learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought
to have considered the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 which was wrongly
applied by the Tribunal. On this issue, the date of birth of the deceased
was 12th December, 1980 and the accident occured on 26 th July, 2013.
Therefore, on the date of the accident his age was 32 years and 7 months.
In the light of the decisions in the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others (supra) and National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi
(supra), he would fall within the age group of 31 to 35 years and
AVK 19 of 23
therefore multiplier 16 will be applicable and not multiplier 17 as held by
the Tribunal.
28. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses, in
the light of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others(supra) ,
the Tribunal has held that one-fourth has to be deducted as the number of
dependent family members was six. Although the Appellant has submitted
that the Tribunal wrongly calculated the dependency to be 3/4 th and the
dependency ought to be calculated at 2/3 rd considering the widow and
two minor children only, the Appellant has not produced any
corroborative evidence regarding the non-dependency of the Respodents
No. 4 to 6. Therefore I do not consider it necessary to deal with this issue.
29. The basic salary of the deceased at the time of his death was
Rs.24,697/- per month and including 50% future prospects the same
comes to Rs.37,046/-. After deduction of 1/4 th expenses for personal
nature and income tax payable of Rs.17,500/- and after applying
multiplier of 16 the total amount payable under loss of income is
calculated to be Rs.51,24,624/-. On the Tribunal granting Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium to Respondent No.2, Rs.2,00,000/- towards
AVK 20 of 23
love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss to estate, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for
minor children on the basis of the decision in the case of Rajesh and
others v. Rajbir Singh and others (supra), it is settled law that the loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has to be calculated in
accordance with the principles laid down in the decision in the case of
National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi (supra) where the Court has in
paragraphs 52 and 59.2 held that loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively and the same should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every
three years. Accordingly the loss of estate has to be calculated to be
Rs.16,500/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as calculated by the Tribunal. The loss
of consortium has to be calculated at the rate of Rs.44,000/- for each of
the Respondents No.1 to 6 and not at Rs.1,00,000/- as calculated by the
Tribunal. Funeral expenses have to be calculated at Rs.16,500/- and not
Rs.25,000/- as calculated by the Tribunal.
30. In view of the above discussion and as per the calculation jointly
submitted by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
Narvankar, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6, this Court is
AVK 21 of 23
of the view that the Appellants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.54,21,624/- as per the following calculation:
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Basic Income Rs.24,697/-
2. 50% future prospects Rs.12,349/-
3. Annual (1+2 x12) Rs.4,44,552/-
4. Less Income Tax payable Rs.17,500/-
5. Less 1/4th deduction of expenses Rs.1.06,763/-
of personal nature
6. Total 3-4-5 Rs.3,20,289/-
7. Compensation on dependency Rs.3,20,289 X 16 =
(multiplier of 16) Rs.51,24,624/-
8. Add loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
9. Add funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
10. Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- Rs.2,64,000/-
x 6 claimants)
11. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.54,21,624/-
(7+8+9+10)
31. Accordingly, the Respondents No.1 to 6 are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.54,21,624/- inclusive of amount of compensation
under 'no-fault' liability along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per
annum to be paid by the Appellant and the Respondent No.7 jointly and
AVK 22 of 23
severally from the date of filing of the petition till realization, to be
distributed inter se amongst the Respondents No.1 to 6 in the manner and
proportion as mentioned in the judgment and award dated 4th September,
2015 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur less the amount, if
any, already withdrawn.
32. The judgment and award dated 4th September, 2015 of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur be modified to the above extent.
33. The appeal of the Appellant Insurance Company accordingly stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
AVK 23 of 23
