Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Sneha Arvind @ Sneha Ashok ... on 25 April, 2025
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN
2025:BHC-AS:19638
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2025.04.30 H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
15:28:12 +0300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.856 OF 2024
United India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Union Co-operative Building,
5th Floor, P. M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001 ... Appellant
vs.
1. Smt. Sneha Arvind @ Sneha
Ashok Chanchlani
Aged 28 years, widow of the deceased ...
2. Mr. Balasubramanian Laxminarayanan
Aged 62 years, father of the deceased ...
3. Mrs.Vidhyunmala Balasubramanian
Aged 62 years, mother of the deceased ...
4. Ms. Vilasini Balasubramanian
Aged 24 years, sister of the deceased
All residing at 501, Rajesh Park, 60 feet,
Road, R. B. Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (E)
Mumbai 400 077 ...
5. Mr. Ankush Suryabhan Kolpe
Residing at Kolpe Wadi,
Sinnar 422 102
Nashik, Maharashtra
(owner of the offending vehicle) ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2024
1. Ms. Sneha Arvind @ Sneha
Ashok Chanchlani ...
Aged 28 years,
1/22
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2025 07:43:44 :::
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
2. Mr. Balasubramanian Laxminarayanan
Aged 62 years, ...
3. Ms. Vidhyunmala Balasubramanian
Aged 62 years, ...
4. Ms. Vilasini Balasubramanian
Aged 24 years,
All residing at 501, Rajesh Park, 60 feet,
Road, R. B. Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (E)
Mumbai 400 077 ... Appellants
vs.
1. United India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Union Co-operative Building,
5th Floor, P. M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001 ...
2. Mr. Ankush Suryabhan Kolpe
Residing at Kolpe Wadi,
Sinnar 422 102
Nashik, Maharashtra
(owner of the offending vehicle) ...Respondents
Ms. Varsha Chavan for the Appellant in FA/856/2024 and for
Respondent No.1 in FA No.1570/2024.
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Aseem Naphade and Pratik
Deshmukh i/b Adwait Bhonde for the Appellants in FA No.1570/2024
and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in FA No.856/2024.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 2nd APRIL 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th APRIL 2025
2/22
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2025 07:43:44 :::
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
JUDGMENT :
. Present Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") against the Judgment and Order dated
21/08/2023, in M.A.C.P. No.807 of 2019 ("Claim"), passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai thereby the said claim
under Section 166 of the Act was partly allowed and the Appellant
and Respondent No.5 in First Appeal No.856 of 2024 were held liable
to pay the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the said Appeal the compensation
in the sum of Rs.1,36,53,444/- with an interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of the claim till realization of the said amount.
1.1) First Appeal No.856 of 2024 is filed mainly on the
grounds of negligence and the compensation amount awarded is
excessive. First Appeal No.1570/2024 is filed by the claimants on the
ground that just compensation has not been awarded by the Tribunal.
As such, both Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
(Hereinafter, the parties in both the Appeals are being referred to as
per their status in the First Appeal No.856 of 2024, i.e., the Appellant
as "the Insurer", Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as "the Claimants" and
Respondent No.5 as"the Insured").
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
2) Heard, Ms. Chavan, the learned Counsel for the insurer
and Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants. Perused
the record. Notice to Respondent No.5 is dispensed with vide order
dated 06/09/2024.
3) Facts in brief are that, the claimants filed the said M.A.C.P
No.807 of 2019, therein they averred that on 23/12/2018, at about
9.00 hours, late Arvind Balasubramanian was riding his motor cycle
("M/cycle") bearing MH-03-DB-2422 from Thane towards Igatpuri,
on Mumbai-Agra Highway. When his M/cycle reached in front of
Star hotel, at Shahpur, a motor jeep bearing MH-14-EM-9228
("jeep") came from Nashik side, driven at a very high speed, rashly,
and negligent manner and gave a dash to the M/cycle. The deceased
fell down on the road due to the said dash and sustained serious
injuries. Immediately, the deceased was removed to Igatpuri
Government hospital but he was dead by then. On receiving this
information, an FIR bearing No.282 of 2018, came to be registered
with Kasara police station under sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of
I.P.C 184 and 177 of the Act.
3.1) The claimants averred that the deceased was serving as a
Consultant with M/s.Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.,
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
thereby he was earning Rs.9,00,000/- per annum. All the claimants
were depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the
claimants prayed to award total compensation in the sum of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- with interest.
4) Despite notice of the claim, the insured did not file his
appearance. Hence, he was marked ex-parte. The insurer resisted the
claim by filing the written statement (Exh.13). The insurer contended
that the jeep was not responsible to cause the accident. It was
contended that the accident occurred due to circumstances beyond
the control of the driver of the jeep. It was contended that the
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the
M/cycle by the deceased. In the alternative, it was contended that this
is a case of contributory negligence. Therefore, the insurer prayed to
dismiss the claim with costs.
5) In the backdrop, the Tribunal framed the issues. To prove
the claim, the claimants adduced evidence of claimant/Respondent
No.1 (AW1/Exh.17) and examined Divesh M. Parmar (AW2/Exh.32),
to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. Besides, the
claimants relied on the following documents in evidence :- Insurance
Policy (Exh.18), FIR (Exh.19), Wireless message (Exh.20), Report
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
(Exh.21), Spot Panchnama (Exh.22), Inquest Panchnama (Exh.23),
P.M. Report (Exh.24), Driving license (Exh.27), Offer Letter of
Appointment (Exh.35), Consent/offer acceptance letter (Exh.36),
Salary Slips (Exh.37) and Income Tax Form No.16 (Exh.38).
6) Ms. Chavan, the learned Counsel for the insurer submitted
that according to the claimants, there was head on collision between
the two vehicles. The accident occurred in the middle of the road. As
such, it is safe to infer that the deceased was riding his M/cycle in the
wrong lane and he was more blamable for the accident.
6.1) Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in
her evidence, AW1 has clearly stated that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the jeep. This evidence is supported
with the police papers. There is no evidence in the rebuttal.
7) On the point of the accident, the evidence of AW1 is that at
the relevant time and place, the jeep was driven at a very high speed,
rashly and negligently. As a result, the jeep dashed the M/cycle of the
deceased. However, AW1 has not witnessed the accident. The insured
and the insurer have not examined the driver of the jeep. As such, it is
necessary to depend upon the police papers relied by the claimants.
Admittedly, the FIR (Exh.19) was registered on the basis of the
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
information given by Police Constable Mr.Baluram Chaudhari, Buckle
No.3234. As stated in the FIR, on 23/12/2018, at about 9.00 hours,
while Mr.Chaudhari and other police personnel were present on duty
at Chintan Wadi check post, on the Mumbai - Agra highway, they
received the information about the accident. Immediately, they went
to the spot. There, they noticed that at the time of the accident, the
M/cycle was driven by the deceased from Mumbai towards Nashik. At
the same time, the driver of the jeep drove the jeep from Nashik side
towards Mumbai in a reckless and negligent manner and dashed the
M/cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and,
consequently, he died. The Spot Panchnama recorded that the
M/cycle was considerably damaged. Said fact indicated that the jeep
was driven at a very high speed. The Spot Panchnama indicates that
the road was wide enough. As such, the jeep could have easily crossed
over the M/cycle. However, the jeep dashed the M/cycle. Therefore,
it is safe to infer that the driver of the jeep did not keep a proper look
out on the road and, consequently, the jeep dashed the M/cycle. Thus,
the Spot Panchnama supported the FIR. Therefore, I am in
agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep.
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
Despite opportunities, the insured and the insurer did not examine
the driver of the jeep to establish their contention that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the M/cycle by the
deceased himself. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against
them.
8) The evidence of AW2 is that, since 2012, he has been
serving as the Senior consultant-HR in M/s. Capgemini Technology
Services India Ltd., Vikhroli (West). The evidence of AW1 and AW2 is
that since 2017, the deceased was serving with the aforesaid company.
This evidence is supported with an Offer Letter (Exh.35), Letter of
Acceptance (Exh.35 and 36), Salary Slips for the month of September
and October 2018 (Exh.37 colly.) and Form-16 of A.Y. 2019-2020
(Exh.38). Said oral and documentary evidence went unchallenged in
the cross-examination so far as the occupation is concerned. Hence, I
hold that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as the
Consultant, on a monthly salary basis, with the said Company.
9) The evidence of AW1 and AW2 is that, at the time of the
accident the deceased was earning Rs.9,00,000/- per annum by way
of said services. AW2 deposed that in the month of September 2018,
the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.90,244/- and in October
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
2018, said salary was Rs.70,186/-. To strengthen this evidence, AW2
relied upon true copies of the Salary Slips for the month of September
and October 2018 (Exh.37 colly.). AW2 deposed that as per the Form-
16 (Exh.38) the total salary income of the deceased from January
2018 to December 2018 was Rs.6,55,466/-. Additionally, AW2 filed a
separate Affidavit (Exh.31) as the Certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act to support the said Salary Slips and the Form-16.
Considering the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal in
paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment held that the salary income
of the deceased was Rs.70,186/-, as stated in the Salary Slip for the
month of October 2018. The other monthly allowances of Rs.13,300/-
were taxable. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the yearly income as
Rs.8,42,232/-. Out of the said gross annual income, the Tribunal
deducted Rs.50,000/- towards Income Tax and Rs.2,500/- towards
Professional Tax. Thus, the net annual income was taken as
Rs.7,89,732/-. The Tribunal held that the deceased was in permanent
employment, and he was aged 29 years as per his date of birth,
26.09.1989, stated on his driving licence (Exh.27). Therefore, in
accordance with the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s.
Pranay Sethi and Others1 and Sarla Verma and others v/s. Delhi
1. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
Transport Corporation and another2, the Tribunal added 50% of the
established net annual income towards the future prospects of the
deceased, deducted 1/3rd from the actual net yearly income towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased and took the
multiplier of '17'. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,34,25,444/-
towards the loss of the dependency (Rs.70,186/- x 12 = Rs.8,42,232/-
- Rs.52,500/- = Rs.7,89,732/- + Rs.3,94,866/- (50%) - Rs.3,94,866
(1/3rd) = Rs.7,89,732/- x 17).
10) Ms. Chavan submitted that the Claimants have not
produced the Salary Slip for the month of November 2018. The
employer of the deceased has been a multinational tech company.
However, said company failed to produce the Salary Slips for three
consecutive months. Therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn
that either the said company has no information of the income or it
suppressed some material information from the Court. She submitted
that, before the Tribunal, the learned Advocate for the Claimants
submitted that the income of the deceased be taken as Rs.69,511/- per
month. However, the Tribunal took the said income as Rs.70,186/-
per month. She submitted that the Tribunal deducted the income tax
2. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
component of Rs.50,000/- but, the tax deducted towards the nine
months' income was Rs.50,856/-. Thus, the income tax was deducted
on the lower side, which is arbitrary. She, therefore, urged that the
compensation awarded towards the loss of the dependency be
reduced, accordingly.
11) In contrast, Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.9,00,000/-
per annum. Accordingly, his monthly income/salary was Rs.75,000/-.
His average monthly salary income was Rs.80,230/- for the months
of September and October 2018. He submitted that in the financial
year 2018-2019, the deceased worked only for 9 months and 23 days,
i.e., from 01/04/2018 to 23/12/2018. During that period, his average
monthly income was Rs.72,829/- (Rs.6,55,466/- ÷ 9 months). Yet,
the Tribunal considered the monthly income as Rs.70,186/-, which is
erroneous. Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged
that the monthly income be held as Rs.72,829/-, at least.
12) Considering the aforesaid controversy as to the monthly
salary income, the Income Tax Form No.-16 for the Assessment Year
2019-2020 (Exh.38) is crucial. As stated in this form, the annual
income of the deceased for the financial year 2018-2019 was
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
Rs.6,55,466/-, out of which total Rs.50,856/- was deducted towards
the income tax and Rs.1,900/- was deducted as the employment tax.
Accordingly, the net income was Rs.6,02,710/-.
12.1) In the said financial year, the deceased worked for 9
months and 23 days (total 266 days). As such, his average net
monthly income was Rs.67,975/- (Rs.6,02,710/- ÷ 266 days =
2265.82 x 30 days). There is nothing to doubt the genuineness and
correctness of the declarations in the said Form-16 nor there is any
evidence in the rebuttal thereof. Hence, I hold that the net monthly
income of the deceased was Rs.67,975/- which annually comes to
Rs.8,15,700/-. The evidence of AW2 indicates that the deceased was
in permanent employment, and as noted above, the deceased was
aged 29 years. The insurer has not contradicted this fact by adducing
any evidence. I, therefore, hold that 50% of the net annual income of
Rs.8,15,700/- should be added towards the future prospects of the
deceased. On such addition, the actual yearly income of the deceased
comes to Rs.12,23,550/-.
13) Now the question is what amount should be deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, i.e., 1/3 rd or
1/4th. The answer to this question depends upon the number of
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
dependents on the income of the deceased.
13.1) The evidence of AW1 indicates that all the claimants were
dependant on the income of the deceased. Admittedly, AW1 is the
widow of the deceased. The claimants/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are his
aged father, mother and sister, respectively.
14) Ms. Chavan, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted
that, as admitted by AW1, the claimant/Respondent No.2 has been a
retired person and the claimant/Respondent No.4 has been in
service. She, therefore, emphatically submitted that said two
claimants have income from pension and salary, respectively. Hence,
they both were not dependant on the income of the deceased. She
submitted that as held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. As such, only
two claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were dependant on the
income of the deceased. Therefore, the 1/3rd deduction of the actual
yearly income of the deceased towards his personal and living
expenses was proper.
15) Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
strongly rebutted the said submissions contending that the
claimant/Respondent No.2 being aged and claimant/Respondent
No.4 being unmarried sister both were completely dependent on the
income of the deceased. Withal, the Tribunal did not decide the
question of the number of dependents nor recorded any specific
findings in that regard nor give a reason for the 1/3 rd deduction
instead of the 1/4th. Hence, the said deduction should be substituted
with 1/4th.
16) The claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were certainly
dependent on the income of the deceased. This aspect of the case in
not disputed by Ms. Chavan, the learned Counsel for the insurer. The
claimant/Respondent No.2 was aged 62 years when the claim was
filed. Generally, aged parents are dependents on their earning
children for various reasons. The insurer has not adduced any
evidence to show that the claimant/Respondent No.2 has been a
pensioner and his pension income is adequate. That apart, even if it is
presumed that the claimant/Respondent No.2 has some income from
a pension, he must be shouldering the responsibility of
claimant/Respondent No.3, who was then aged 57 years. There must
be depletion of the pension income towards their age related ailments
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
and other needs. The claimants have been residing in Mumbai, which
is a financial and commercial city. As such, the cost of their living is
obviously high. So, the pension amount could be barely sufficient for
the said claimant. I, therefore, hold that the claimant/Respondent
No.2 was dependent on the deceased.
17) The insurer has not produced any evidence to show that
the claimant/Respondent No.4 was in service at the time of the
accident and since then, she has been earning sufficient to maintain
herself, and she was not dependant on the deceased. It appears that
the claimant/Respondent No.4 was unmarried at the time of the
accident. Therefore, the evidence of AW1 is acceptable that the
deceased used to extend some monetary help to the claimant/
Respondent No.4. Hence I hold that the claimant/Respondent No.4
was also dependant on the deceased.
17.1) There is one more angle to look at the controversy as to
whether the claimant/Respondent No.4 was dependant on the
deceased or not. In this context, it would be apposite to refer the
decision in Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s. Soumita Roy
and another3. In that case, the father had filed the claim on accidental
death of his son. The father proceeded the claim with due diligence,
3. 2018 ACJ 1581 (Cal.)
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
but it could not be disposed early due to certain delay attributable to
the insurance company and other events. During the pendency of the
claim, the father died. In the meanwhile, he had examined 8
witnesses. On father's death, his daughter i.e. non-dependent sister of
deceased impleaded herself as the claimant. Thereafter, the claim was
decided and an award of Rs.1,22,62,015/- was passed, which was
under challenge.
18) In this background, the High Court held that if the father
had died after the arguments were concluded but before the
judgment, the sister would have got the compensation award. Since
this has not happened, the sister would be entitled only for the
compensation towards loss to estate and funeral charges. But no party
to a judicial proceeding ought to be allowed to reap the benefit of the
delay caused by it in conclusion of proceeding against his adversary.
It is observed that, "It is true that compensation for loss of love,
affection and guidance that could have been showered by an elder
(who dies in a motor vehicular accident) on the members of his family
is not expressly provided for in the 1988 Act; however, at the same
time, it must be remembered that Section 168 of the Act speaks of just
compensation on facts and the circumstances of a given case and not
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
a specified amount under different heads, as one would find in the
Second Schedule of the Act. Although compensation for loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses have been standardized in
Pranay Sethi (supra), just compensation must be "just" in the facts of
the case before the Tribunal/Court and not any arbitrary or fanciful
amount without having any nexus to the extent of loss suffered by the
members of the deceased's family. To a sister, loss of her only brother
is immeasurable. It is the brother who would always be there when
the sister needs him, the brother would be the person who would pick
her up if she were to trip and fall, it would be the brother's shoulder
on which she could assuredly rest on faced with turmoil in her life and
so on so forth. Since the 1988 Act does not specifically provide how
compensation in such a case is to be assessed, is it for the
Tribunals/Courts to fold hands and decline relief? We think not.
Chapter XII of the 1988 Act is a beneficent legislation and Section 168
thereof has left the matter of assessment of compensation to the
discretion of the Tribunal/Courts. Of course, care and caution have to
be exercised while assessing compensation; but it would tantamount
to frustrating the purpose of compensation if no amount were
awarded under any particular head on the specious ground that the
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
1988 Act does not provide for it. If indeed such logic were to be
accepted, no amount could also be awarded for future prospects, or
under 'non-pecuniary' heads since the same is traceable only in the
Second Schedule which is not applicable for applications under
Section 166 of the 1988 Act. We, thus, hold that the issue has to be
answered in the light of the peculiar facts noticed above". Having
given the consideration thus, the High Court modified the award and
awarded Rs.50,00,000/- to the sister.
18.1) In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Ahmedabad v/s. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society, and
in paragraph 11 observed and held as under :
"11. ... Every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle
accident should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to
110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance
with the principles of law of Torts that every injury must
have a remedy. It is for the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears
to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act
4. 1987 ACJ 561 (SC)
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
and to specify the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid. ... We should remember
that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers'
children and some times foster children live together
and they are dependent upon the bread winner of the
family and if bread winner is killed on account of the
accident, there is no justification to deny the
compensation relying upon the provision of the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has
been substantially modified by the provisions contained
in the Act in relation to the cases arising out of motor
vehicles accidents. ... ".
18.2) In the instant case in hand, as noted above, the
claimant/Respondent No.2 is aged. By now, the claimant/Respondent
No.3 is also aged. So, they may be facing their age related different
problems. As such, besides the aged parents, only the deceased was
there to provide consistent monetary and family support to the
claimant/Respondent No.4. It is obvious that due to the death of
deceased, the claimant/Respondent No.4 has lost his love, guidance
and support which is most needed during certain rough times and
turmoil in one's Life. The deceased was just 29 years. Presently, the
claimant/Respondent No.4 is aged about 30 years. To such a sister,
loss of the young brother is immeasurable. Claims and legal liabilities
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
crystallise at the time of accident itself. So, if no compensation is
conceived in this case, it would amount to holding that no loss at all is
suffered by the sister on account of the death of the brother
notwithstanding he was of huge help throughout her long life.
Undoubtedly, such rigid thinking is against the intention of the Act.
Thus, the aforesaid background adds to my conclusion above that the
claimant/Respondent No.4 was dependant on the deceased.
18.3) In view of the above discussion, my findings as to the
number of dependents and to meet the concept of 'just
compensation', 1/4th of the actual yearly income of Rs.12,23,550/-
should be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased. On such deduction, the yearly loss of the dependency
comes to Rs.9,17,662.50. The applicable multiplier is '17'. As a result,
the claimants are entitled to receive Rs.1,56,00,263/- towards the loss
of dependency (Rs.12,23,550/- - Rs.3,05,887.50 (1/4th) =
Rs.9,17,662.50 x 17). In view of the decision in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. 5, the
claimant/Respondent No.1 is entitled to receive Rs.44,000/- as
'spousal' consortium and the claimants/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
5. 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
entitled to receive Rs.44,000/- each as 'filial' consortium.
Additionally, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.16,500/- under the
head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.16,500/- under the head 'loss to
estate'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of
Rs.1,57,65,263/- as the compensation. Considering the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the claimants are entitled to get an
interest at the rate of 7 % per annum on the enhanced compensation
amount.
19) Upshot of the above discussion is that, the Tribunal erred
in ascertaining the correct monthly income of the deceased and the
number of dependents on him, which error resulted in quantifying
the compensation amount on the lower side. Said infirmity, therefore,
called for an interference in the impugned Judgment and Order to
modify the award. As a result, the F.A. No.856 of 2024 is liable to be
dismissed and the F.A. No.1570 of 2024 deserves to be partly allowed.
20) Hence, following Order is passed :-
(i) First Appeal No.856 of 2024 is dismissed with
proportionate costs.
(ii) First Appeal 1570 of 2024 is partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
H.C. SHIV fa856.2024.doc
(iii) The impugned Judgment and Order dated
21/08/2023, in M.A.C.P. No.807 of 2019, passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai is modified.
(iv) The Appellant- Insurance Company shall pay the
compensation of Rs.1,57,65,263/- (inclusive of NFL
amount) together with interest thereon at the rate of 7 %
per annum from the date of the claim petition till
realisation of the amount.
(v) The entire amount of the compensation alongwith
the interest shall be disbursed among the claimants/
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in First Appeal No.856 of 2024 and
invested in their name as directed by the Tribunal, subject
to payment of deficit Court fee, if any.
The Appellant/Insurer will be entitled to an
adjustment of the amount proportionate to the already
paid amount, if any, under the impugned Award.
(vi) Statutory deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the
Tribunal and it be disbursed in accordance with the law.
(vii) The Appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
