Bombay High Court

Vimal Bhagwan Wasu And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its ... on 8 April, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:10489
                                                 1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2019

               United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
               Through its Administrative Officer (T.P. Hub)
               Shri. Mahendra Pratapsingh Virat,
               Age : 50 years, Occu : Service,
               R/o. Divisional Office - I,
               Osmanpura, Aurangabad.                               ... Appellant
                                                                 ( Orig. Resp. No.2 )
                     Versus

               1.    Vimal w/o. Bhagwan Wasu,
                     Age : 34 years, Occu : Household,
                     R/o. Chinchala, Tq. Hingoli,
                     Dist. Hingoli

               2.    Sindhu Bhagwan Wasu,
                     Age : 18 yrs, Occu : Education,
                     R/o. As above.

               3.    Kavita d/o. Bhagwan Wasu,
                     Age : 15 yrs, Occu : Education,
                     R/o. As above.

               4.    Hanuman s/o. Bhagwan Wasu
                     Age : 16 yrs, Occu : Education,
                     As above.

               5.    Radheshyam Bhagwan Wasu
                     Age : 13 yrs, Occu : Education
                     R/o. As above

                     (Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are minor through its U/G.
                      of Respondent No.1)

               6.    Bhagwan Panduji Wasu
                     Age : 64 yrs, Occu : Nil,
                     R/o. As above.

               7.    Prayagbai w/o. Bhagwan Wasu
                     Age : 54 yrs, Occu : Nil,
                     R/o. As above.                            (Orig. Claimants)
                                  2
8.     Sanjay s/o. Piraji Babhulkar,
       Age : Major, Occu : Business,
       R/o. Post Office Road,
       Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli                      ... Respondents
                           .....
Shri. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri. Vaibhav B. Dhage, Advocate for the Respondents
                                     .....
                                  WITH
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3431 OF 2025
                                     IN
                      FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2019
                                     .....
                          CORAM             : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                         RESERVED ON           :   02.04.2025
                         PRONOUNCED ON :           08.04.2025

JUDGMENT :

. This is the Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') against the Judgment and Award dated

11.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACP No.244/2015,

awarding total compensation of Rs.23,54,000/- (Rs. Twenty Three Lakh

Fifty Four Thousand only) to the Claimants with interest @ 7% per

annum from the date of Petition till it's full and final realization.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Appeal are as

follows :

2A. Bhagwan Ramji Wasu (hereinafter referred to as 'Deceased')

was engaged in agricultural work and used to sell milk from his cattle.

Deceased was residing with his family comprising Widow, four Children

and Parents at village Chinchala, Tal. & Dist. Hingoli. On 19.03.2015

when Deceased was returning to his village with his friend Babarao

Mandale on motorcycle and stopped at one place besides the road for

answering nature's call, at that time the Indica Car bearing No.

MH-38/2585 which was owned by Respondent No.8 and insured with

the Appellant / Insurance Company and which was being driven by it's

driver in rash and negligent manner on the said road, gave dash to the

stationary motorcycle and Deceased. Due to the Car dash, Deceased

suffered severe injuries and died. The accident was reported to the

Hingoli (Rural) Police Station and Crime No.37/2015 came to be

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 279 and 427

of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.') against the Driver of the said

Car. The investigation was carried out and the Driver was Charge-

sheeted by the Police.

2B. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 / Claimants filed the above referred

Claim Petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the Appellant

and Respondent No.8 before the learned Tribunal for compensation of

Rs.22,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh). The Claim Petition was

contested by the Appellant by filing Written-statement at Exh.14. In

support of the Claim Petition, the Widow examined herself by filing

evidence Affidavit at Exh.17 and brought on record the Police papers,

copies of Insurance Policy of the Car, copies of Driving Licence of

Respondent No.8 and that of the Car Driver. The Appellant did not lead

any evidence. The learned Tribunal decided the Claim Petition by

impugned Judgment and Award.

3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned

Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Service to Respondent No.8 is

exempted in view of the order dated 08.02.2019. Perused the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the

learned Tribunal has granted exorbitant compensation. The per month

income of Deceased is considered as Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand)

which is on higher side. In absence of any income proof brought on

record by Respondent Nos.1 to 7, the learned Tribunal ought to have

considered the notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month. No deductions

were made towards personal expenses. Addition of 40% towards future

prospects was erroneous. There was no proof of age of Deceased and

therefore the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was incorrect. The

impugned Judgment and Award be set aside and the compensation

awarded be reduced.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7

that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence available

on record and there is no dispute on the aspect of motor vehicular

accident by use of said Car which was duly insured with the Appellant.

The learned Tribunal has rightly quantified the amount under various

heads which are in accordance with law and needs no interference and

hence, the Appeal be dismissed.

6. There is no dispute in respect of the relations of Respondent Nos.1

to 7 with Deceased. As regards the death of Deceased due to motor

vehicular accident, there is no serious dispute. The Police papers

available on record vide list of documents at Exh.4 shows that the Crime

was registered on 20.03.2015 in respect of motor vehicular accident by

use of said Car and at the said place, referred above. The Spot

Panchanama speak of the accident and registration number of the said

Car is reflected in the FIR which was lodged on the very next day of the

accident. The Post-mortem Report shows the death due to 'Head Injury'.

Nothing contrary is brought on record by the Appellant to discard the

Police papers and come to the conclusion other than the one that

Deceased died due to the motor vehicular accident due to use of the said

Car.

7. There is also no dispute that the said Car was registered in the

name of Respondent No.8 and insured with the Appellant at the time of

the accident. The copy of the Insurance Policy / Certificate is available

on record.

8. As regards the income of Deceased is concerned, according to

Respondent Nos.1 to 7, monthly income of Deceased was Rs.10,000/-

(Rs. Ten Thousand). The Widow of Deceased, who examined herself as

the witness in support of the Claim Petition, admitted that no documents

were brought on record to show the income of Deceased. There is no

dispute on the aspect that there was no evidence at all in respect of the

earnings of Deceased. The learned Tribunal considered the monthly

income of Deceased at Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand) per month.

According to Respondent Nos.1 to 7, Deceased was educated up to 7 th

Standard and he was working in agricultural field and selling milk.

Undisputedly, Deceased was residing and working in the village.

Accident was of the year 2015. Therefore, in absence of income proof,

the appropriate notional income can be considered as Rs.6,000/-

(Rs. Six Thousand) per month.

9. As regards the age of Deceased is concerned, the Widow who

examined herself as the witness conceded that she was not able to bring

the Birth Certificate of Deceased. In the Police papers i.e. Inquest and

Post-mortem the age of Deceased is mentioned as 30 years. In the Claim

Petition, which was filed within three (3) months from the accident, the

age of Deceased is given as 35 years. In the Claim Petition, the age of

Widow of Deceased is mentioned as 30 years and the age of Deceased's

Father is mentioned as 60 years and age of Mother is mentioned as 50

years. From this, it can be said that Deceased was between 31 to 35

years. The number of dependent family members of Deceased exceeds

six (6) and therefore, the deduction towards personal and living

expenses will be 1/5th and multiplier of 16 would be applicable as per

the Judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

10. Since Deceased was self-employed and below the age of 40 years,

there would be 40% addition to his monthly income as per the

Judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

11. The Widow, Children and the Parents of Deceased would also be

entitled for compensation under the head of Spousal Consortium,

Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium, respectively, @ Rs.40,000/-

(Rs. Forty Thousand) each, in view of the above referred Judgment in

the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd

vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors, 2018 (18) SCC 130 cited by the

learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7.

12. As regards the other conventional heads such as Loss of Estate and

Funeral Expenses would be Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)

each, as per the settled legal principles in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra) which would come to Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand).

13. In the light of the above, the total compensation is worked

out as follows :-

Sr. Heads Amount No.

1. Notional income Rs.6,000/-

2. 40% addition. Rs.2,400/-

3. 1/5th deduction towards Rs.1,680/-

personal expenses

4. Yearly income Rs.80,640/-

5. Multiplier of 16 Rs.12,90,240/-

6. Consortium 40% each Rs.2,80,000/-

7. Loss of estate and notional Rs.30,000/-

expenses Total compensation : Rs.16,00,240/-

14. Section 171 of the M.V. Act provides for simple interest on

the amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal considered the

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till it's

full and final realization, for which no interference is called for.

15. In the light of the above, the impugned Judgment and

Award stands modified and the Appeal is partly allowed. Hence, the

following order.


                                         ORDER

(i)     The Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)    The Appellant and Respondent No.8 shall be jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,00,240/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakh Two

Hundred Forty) to Respondent Nos.1 to 7 with interest @ 7% per annum

from the date of Claim Petition till it's full and final realization.

(iii) Respondent No.1 shall get Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh) along

with interest and costs.

(iv) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall get equal share of Rs.2,50,060/-

(Rs. Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Sixty) each, along with interest and costs.

(v) Respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall get Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh)

each, along with interest and costs.

(vi) The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is deposited by the

Appellant with this Court. As by Order dated 08.02.2019, Respondent

No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Fifty