Bombay High Court
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance ... vs Indubai Ramesh Balpande And 8 Others on 9 October, 2024
Author: M.W. Chandwani
Bench: M.W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:11521
1 fa954.15 +1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.954 OF 2015
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Vimco
Towers, Railway Station Road,
Opposite Hotel Ramgiri, Amravati
through its Branch Manager, 5th Floor,
Land Mark Building, Plot No.56,
Wardha Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. ...APPELLANT
(Orgi. Resp. No.6)
(On R.A.)
...V E R S U S...
1. Indubai Ramesh Balpande,
Aged about 34 years, Occ: Household,
Age of respondent 2. Pankaj Ramesh Balpande,
nos.2 and 3 corrected
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Education,
as per Court's order
Dt.9.8.24
3. Vijay Ramesh Balpande,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Education
4. Smt. Leelabai Ramchandra Balpande,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are residing at
135, Pandhurna, Meghnath Ward No.9,
Tq. Pandhurna, Dist. Chindwada (M.P.)
(Resp Nos.1 to 4 Orig. claimants)
5. Nakib Aktar Nabiullahaq Ansari,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Truck Driver,
Resident of Bhol Line, Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur.
(Orig. Res.No.1)
6. Mr. Babulal Meghraj Hiranwar,
Aged about years, Occ: Truck Owner,
Resident of Gurji Bazar, Kamptee,
District Nagpur.
2 fa954.15 +1.odt
(Orig. Res.No.2)
7. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager,
Jaisthamb Chowk, Samra Complex,
1st Floor, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
(Orig. Res.No.3)
8. Mahendra Bhimrao Ghode,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Truck Driver,
Resident of Takadi Ward, Pandhurna,
District Chindwada.
(Orig. Res.No.4)
9. Mr. Surendra Bhimraoji Ghode,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Truck Driver
cum Owner, Resident of Ram Nagar,
Warud, Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati.
(Orig. Res.No.5)
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.294 OF 2021
National Insurance Company
Limited, Amravati Divisional Office,
Through the Regional Manager,
Nagpur Regional Office,
2nd Floor, Mangalam Arcade North
Bazar Road, Dharampeth Extn. Nagpur. ...APPELLANT
(Orgi. Resp. No.3)
(On R.A.)
...V E R S U S...
1. Indubai Ramesh Balpande,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household,
Age of respondent 2. Pankaj Ramesh Balpande,
nos.2 and 3 corrected
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Education,
as per Court's order
Dt.9.8.24
3. Vijay Ramesh Balpande,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Education
4. Smt. Leelabai Ramchandra Balpande,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household,
3 fa954.15 +1.odt
All residing at 135, Pandhurna,
Meghnath Ward No.9,
Tq. Pandhurna, Dist. Chindwada (M.P.)
(Orig. Petitioners)
5. Nakib Aktar Nabiullahaq Ansari,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Truck Driver,
Resident of Bhol Line, Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur.
(Orig. Res.No.1)
6. Mr. Babulal Meghraj Hiranwar,
Aged major, Occ: Truck Owner,
R/o Gol Bazar, Masjid, Gurji Bazar,
Kamptee, District Nagpur.
(Orig. Res.No.2)
..RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for appellant in FA No.954/2015 and for
respondent no.9 in FA No.294/2021.
Shri D.N. Kukday, Advocate for appellant in FA No.294/2021 and for
respondent no.7 in FA No.954/2015.
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 in both FAs.
Ms Rakhi Basawnathe, Adv. h/f Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent
nos.8 and 9 in FA No.954/2015 and for respondent nos.7 and 8 in FA
No.294/2021.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATE :- 09.10.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are arising out of the same
impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2014 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (for short
"Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No.79/2009, therefore, they are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
4 fa954.15 +1.odt
2. The appellants in both the appeals are insurers of the
two vehicles which were involved in the accident that occurred on
03.02.2009, wherein, Ramesh Balpande, a trader of banana, died
on the spot. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.32,77,500/- to the claimants for loss of dependency alongwith
interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The Tribunal has also found
that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
truck bearing registration No.MH27-X-1735, in which the
deceased was traveling, and therefore, the Tribunal fastened the
liability of compensation to the extent of 25% on the insurer of
truck No.MH27-X-1735 i.e. appellant in FA No.954/2015.
Whereas, remaining 75% of the liability fastened on the insurer of
the truck bearing registration No.MH40-5863 i.e. the appellant in
FA No.294/2021.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the award, the insurers of both
the vehicles preferred these two appeals mainly on the ground of
percentage of contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal as well
as on the ground of excessive compensation, particularly, under
the head of consortium.
4. Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the appellant
in FA No.954/2015 would submit that entire negligence is
5 fa954.15 +1.odt
attributed to the offending vehicle truck No.MH40-5863,
therefore, the Tribunal should not have held contributory
negligence to the extent of 25% on the part of driver of the truck
No.MH27-X-1735. The entire fault was on the part of the driver of
the truck No.MH40-5863, but the Tribunal erroneously fastened
the liability of 25% on the insurer of truck No.MH27-X-1735.
5. As against this, Mr. D.N. Kukday, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant in FA No.294/2021, vehemently submits
that the accident was a head-on collusion and therefore, the
Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect and ought to have
held contributory negligence of both the vehicles at 50% each.
Therefore, the liability fastened on the appellant in FA
No.294/2021 should be reduced from 75% to 50%. So far as
compensation amount granted by the Tribunal is concerned, the
appellant in FA No.294/2021 is also ad idem with what has been
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in FA
No.954/2015.
6. It is common ground of the learned counsel for the
appellants in both appeals that future prospects to the extent of
50% granted by the Tribunal in wake of the decision of the
6 fa954.15 +1.odt
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh 1 is
erroneous for the reason that the said decision has been overruled
in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2
and it has been observed that future prospects assessed on the
income of the deceased, whose age was below 45 years, shall be
granted 40% of the assessed income of deceased instead of 50% as
determined by the decision of Rajbir (supra). It is also submitted
that consortium has also been excessively granted by ignoring the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra).
7. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 (claimants), submitted that the
award granted by the Tribunal is correct and does not require any
interference. According to him, the compensation has also been
rightly granted by the Tribunal. However, he conceded to the legal
position enunciated in the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) with
regard to future prospects as well as consortium and left it to the
Court to pass an appropriate order.
1 (2013) 9 SCC 54
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
7 fa954.15 +1.odt
8. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Tribunal
while passing the impugned award has held that just because
truck No.MH27-X-1735 dashed tree does not mean that the said
truck driver was wholly responsible and also considered that
because the dash was given by truck No.MH40-5863, the truck
moved towards the tree and dashed the tree. The Tribunal further
held that the driver of truck No.MH27-X-1735 should also have
taken due care while crossing over the square and on that premise
the contributory negligence of both vehicles to the extent of 25%
and 75% was determined by the Tribunal.
9. I have gone through the spot panchanama. Perusal of spot
panchanama reveals that truck No.MH27-X-1735 was dashed from
its right side. As per the spot map drawn by the investigating
officer, though the accident occurred on Achalpur - Chandurbazar
road but the truck No.MH27-X-1735 was found near a tree on
Paratwada - Amravati road. The spot panchanama itself goes to
show that due to the dash, the truck No.MH27-X-1735 lost control
and due to the force of dash the said truck moved towards
Paratwada - Amravati Road and gave a dash to the tree. The
impact of the dash given by truck No.MH40-5863 was huge, as a
result of which, the direction of the truck No.MH27-X-1735
8 fa954.15 +1.odt
changed. This itself goes to show that truck MH40-5863 was in
very high speed as compared to truck No.MH27-X-1735. It has
also come on record that the driver of truck No.MH27-X-1735
ought to have been more vigilant, since he had to cross a square,
therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the drivers
of both the vehicles are negligent. Considering the fact that, as a
result of the dash given by truck No.MH40-5863 not only the
direction of the truck No.MH27-X-1735 got diverted from
Achalpur - Chandurbazar road to Amravati - Paratwada road but
also resulted in truck No.MH27-X-1735 giving dash to the tree. I
do not see any reason to interfere with this finding of the Tribunal.
10. This takes me to the submission of the counsel for the
appellants regarding compensation granted by the Tribunal on
account of future prospects and consortium. The Supreme Court in
the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) while answering to the
reference in para 59 has held as under:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as
it was taking a different view than what has been stated
in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot
9 fa954.15 +1.odt
take a contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000."
10 fa954.15 +1.odt
11. Thus, the Supreme Court has observed that Rajesh
(supra) is not binding a precedent and observed that in case of a
self-employed deceased, addition of 40% of assessed income must
be done, if the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the
present case, the Tribunal relied on the decision of Rajesh (supra)
and has granted 50% of the assessed income towards future
prospects. In wake of the observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), this is required to be
corrected.
12. One more aspect considered by the Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) that is of consortium, wherein, it
has been held that the spouse shall be entitled for a fixed amount
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium. Once the
compensation under the head of consortium is granted, there is no
question of granting compensation under the head of love and
affection. Therefore, the Tribunal erroneously granted
Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent nos.2 and 3 each, towards love and
affection and Rs.50,000/- to respondent no.1 and 2 respectively
and Rs.25,000/- to respondent no.4 towards consortium is
erroneous. Therefore, this finding is required to be set aside.
Respondent nos.1 to 4 shall be entitled to the compensation
11 fa954.15 +1.odt
Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium,
respectively. To that extent the impugned award is modified.
13. It has been pointed by the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants that loss of estate has not been
granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent nos.1 to 4 are also
entitled to the amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The
appeal is partly allowed.
14. Put all together respondent nos.1 to 4 are entitled to
the following compensation:
1. Monthly notional income of the deceased fixed by Rs. 15,000/-
the Tribunal
2. Annual income of the deceased (Rs.15,000/- x 12) Rs. 1,80,000/-
3. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 (+) Rs. 72,000/-
years at the time of his death.
Add - 40% future prospects as per the judgment of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680
Rs. 2,52,000/-
4. Less - 1/4th deduction as per the judgment of Sarla (-) Rs. 63,000/-
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - (2009) 6
SCC 121
5. Income for multiplier Rs. 1,89,000/-
6. Multiplier of 15 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (x) Rs. 28,35,000/-
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - (2009) 6 SCC
121, applicable for the age groups of 31 to 35 years
(Rs.1,89,000 x 15)
12 fa954.15 +1.odt
7. Add : Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs. 1,60,000/-
Rs.40,000/- for each claimant as per the judgment of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
(2018) 18 SCC 130 followed in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur - AIR 2020
(SC) 3076 (40,000/- X 4)
8. Add : Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/-
9. Add : Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/-
10. Total compensation payable to the claimants Rs. 30,25,000/-
15. Respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants are entitled to
withdraw the amount alongwith accrued interest, if any, which
they are entitled on this modified award.
16. The excess amount, if any, deposited by the
appellants, respectively, shall be refunded.
17. Rest of the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal shall remain intact.
18. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of in the
above said terms with no order as to costs.
19. Award be drawn accordingly.
JUDGE
Wagh
