Bombay High Court

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sharad Shantaram Patil And Ors on 5 September, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:21376


                      IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            202 FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2007

                       The Depot Manager,
                       Maharashtra State Road Transport
                       Corporation, Jalgaon office,Jalgaon.
                                                                 ...Appellant
                                                           (Original Respondent)
                       VERSUS

                 1.    Sunita w/o Dilip Sonawane,
                       Age 30 years, Occ. Household,

                 2.    Pooja d/o Dilip Sonawane,
                       Age 13 years, Occ.Nil,

                 3.    Rahul s/o Dilip Sonawane,
                       Age 11 years, Occ.Nil,

                 4.    Swapnil s/o Dilip Sonawane,
                       Age 7 years, Occ. Nil,

                       (Respondents No.2 to 4 are minors,
                       therefore represented by heir natural
                       guardian mother i.e. respondent No.1)

                       All R/o Asoda, Taluka Jlagoan,
                       District Jalgaon.                        (Original Petitioners)

                 5.    Premsing s/o Manga Sonawane,
                       Age 47 years, Occ. S. T. Driver,
                       R/o and C/o S. T. Depot, Jalgaon
                       District Jalgaon. (Appeal Dismissed
                       as per Court's order dated 04/09/2015).

                 6.    Sunil s/o Vishnu Narkhade,
                       Age 35 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,

                 7.    Shantaram s/o Narayan Mali,
                       Age 37 years, occ. Rickshaw Owner,
                       Respondents No.6 and 7.
                       R/o Asoda, Taluka and Dist. Jalgaon.

                 8.    Ramesh s/o Tukaram Chaudhari,
                       Age years, Occ. Rickshaw Owner,
                       R/o Lohar Lane, Varangaon,
                       Taluka Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.



                                             Page 1 of 8
                                                         202 FA 985-2007



9.    The Divisional Manager,
      New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
      Dadhiwala Bunglow, Jalgaon
      District Jalgaon.

10.   Smt. Kashabai Pandit Sonawane,
      Age 52 years, occ.Service,
      R/o Manmad, Dist. Nasik.
                                           ...Respondents

                           ...
Advocate for Appellant             : Mr. M. K. Goyanka
Advocate for Respondent No.9       : Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. G. V. Wani
                           ...

                         WITH
         CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5532 OF 2006
                    IN FA/985/2007
                          ...

                       WITH
            FIRST APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2011

      New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
      through its Div. Manager, Mandore
      Market Behind Dahiwala Bunglow,
      Jalgaon Through its authorized
      Signatory, Mr. Sanjiv s/o Ramrao
      Gaisamudre, Age 50 years, Occ.
      Service, Sr. Div. Manager, New
      India Assurance Co. Ltd., R/o
      Aurangabad.                          ...Appellant
                                     (Original Resp.No.5)
      VERSUS

1.    Sharad Shantaram Patil,
      Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
      R/o Asoda, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon.        (Orig.Claimant)

2.    Premsing Manga Sonawane,
      Age 51 years, Occ.Service,
      S.T.Depot, Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon.

                           Page 2 of 8
                                                             202 FA 985-2007




     3.    The Divisional Controller,
           MSRTC Jalgaon, New Bus Stand
           Premises, Zilla Peth Jalgaon.

     4.    Sunil Vishnu Narkhede,
           Age 41 years, Occ. Rickshaw Driver,
           R/o Asoda, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon.

     5.   Ramesh Tukaram Chaudhari,
          Age 45 years, Occ. Business,
          R/o Lohar Galli, Varangaon,
          Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.           ...Respondents
                                    (Orig.Claimant and Resp.No.1 to 4)
                                  ...
     Advocate for Appellant               : Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande
     Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. G. V. Wani
                                  ...

                              WITH
              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3433 OF 2011
                         IN FA/341/2011
                               ....

                                 CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                   Dated : September 5, 2024.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant, MSRTC, challenges the order passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.590/199, dated 08/08/2005, which

granted compensation to the claimants, dependents of the deceased,

who was traveling in the auto-rickshaw that met with an accident

involving an MSRTC bus.

202 FA 985-2007

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 10/09/1998, Dilip Pandit Sonawane was traveling in auto-

rickshaw from Jalgaon to Asoda. At around 6:00 p.m., near Khari Doha,

the auto-rickshaw collided with MSRTC bus bearing No. MH-20/A-4697

coming from the opposite direction. The auto-rickshaw, bearing No. MH-

19/8141, in which Dilip Sonawane was traveling, was involved in the

collision, resulting in his death at the spot. The claimants, being the

legal heirs and dependents of late Dilip Sonawane, filed a claim petition

against MSRTC, the auto-rickshaw owner, and its insurer, seeking

compensation for loss of dependency.

4. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the MSRTC

bus driver was solely negligent in causing the accident and directed

MSRTC to pay the entire compensation amounting of Rs.3,60,788/- to

the dependents. The Tribunal based its calculation considering the

deceased's monthly income of Rs. 2,583/- and his age at the time of

accident being 32 years.

5. Challenging this order, the learned Counsel for the MSRTC

contends that the case involved contributory negligence and that both

the auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer should bear a portion of the

202 FA 985-2007

liability. The learned counsel for MSRTC argued that the auto-rickshaw

was also partially responsible for the accident. The learned counsel for

MSRTC referred to the spot panchanama, the complaint filed by

occupant of the rickshaw, and the testimony of the rickshaw driver. He

submits that the rickshaw driver was an interested witness who shifted

the entire blame on to the driver of the MSRTC bus. The spot

panchanama and the complaint indicated that the auto-rickshaw was

also partially responsible, and thus the compensation should have been

apportioned between the owners of both vehicles.

6. After reviewing the original record, with the assistance of learned

counsel Mr. M. K. Goyanka for appellant/ MSRTC and learned Counsel Mr.

D. P. Deshpande for respondent No.9/ Insurance Company, it is to be

noted that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has observed that

the road where the accident occurred was 18 feet wide, with 11 feet

occupied by the bus. The auto-rickshaw on impact was taken of the

road and went on to the mud lane. It was also established that the bus

had only one functioning headlight on the left side. The accident

occurred in the evening during rain, reducing visibility. While both

drivers were driving vehicles in high speed, the totality of the

circumstances and the complaint filed by the rickshaw occupant, along

with the chargesheet filed against the drivers of both the vehicles,

202 FA 985-2007

suggest that the auto-rickshaw was 25% responsible for the accident,

and MSRTC was 75% responsible. Therefore, the apportionment should

be 75% to MSRTC and 25% to the auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer.

7. Regarding the compensation awarded, although the Tribunal

computed it based on the deceased's monthly income of Rs. 2,583/-, it

appears that the further compensation under various heads was not

correctly calculated as per ratio laid down in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Trivedi & Ors. vs. Kasam

Daud Kumbhar & Ors. [(2015) 4 SCC 237] has held that

compensation must be just, even if no cross-objections or appeals are

filed by the claimants, the same should be granted by the High Court.

8. After applying the appropriate multiplier and adding conventional

heads as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the revised

compensation amount is Rs.4,27,356/- with interest at 7% per annum

from the date of filing the claim petition.

9. Accordingly, the claimants, who were awarded Rs.3,60,788/- by

the Tribunal, are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,27,356/-

202 FA 985-2007

with 7% interest from the date of filing the claim. The computation is as

follows :

                    Particulars                                 Amount

Monthly income of the deceased                    Rs. 2,583/-
50% future prospects (as per Sarla Verma)         Rs. 1,292/-
                                            Total Rs. 3,875/-
1/4th deduction for personal expenses             Rs. 968/-
                         Total (after deductions) Rs. 2,907/-
Rs. 2,907 x 12 (months) x 16 (multiplier)         Rs. 5,58,144/-
Consortium (Rs. 40,000 x 5 claimants)             Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of estate                                    Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses                                  Rs. 15,000/-
                              Total compensation Rs. 7,88,144/-
Granted by the Tribunal                           Rs. 3,60,788/-
Enhanced compensation                             Rs. 4,27,356/-

10. In light of the above, the apportionment as made in First Appeal

No.985/2007 would also apply to First Appeal No.341/2011. First Appeal

No.341/2011 relates to injury claim and the apportionment of

compensation would be 75% by MSRTC and 25% jointly and severally by

auto-rickshaw driver/ respondent No.4, owner/ respondent No.5 and

insurance of auto-rickshaw / petitioner. The enhanced amount is

directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of this

judgment before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The amount

already deposited in this Court, if any, shall be transferred to the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petitions

202 FA 985-2007

No.590/1999 and No.217/2000 for disbursement as per the law.