Bombay High Court
Shantabai Ramesh Salve And Another vs Ashok Kishanrao Kharat And Another on 12 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14725
1 FA653.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2017
1. Shantabai W/o Ramesh Salve,
Age : 44 years, Occu: Household,
2. Ramesh S/o Marotrao Salve,
Age : 49 years, Occu: Labour,
Both R/o. Sarfraznagar, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. ...Applicants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. Ashok S/o Kishanrao Kharat,
Age : 45 years, Occu: Business & Owner,
R/o. Suyog Colony, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Shivaji Road, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
........
Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil - Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Vilas S. Janephalkar - Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. S. R. Bodade - Advocate for Respondent No. 2
..........
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.04.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 12.06.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'] by the Original
Claimants, who are the parents of Vishal Salve (hereinafter referred to as
2 FA653.2017.odt
'Deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicular Accident, for further
enhancement.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : -
2.1. The Claimants filed the Claim Petition bearing No. 5 of
2010 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani [for
short 'the Tribunal'] under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Their Deceased
son was working as the Cleaner on Tempo bearing No. MH-22/1707. On
14.03.2009, at about 01:30 am, Deceased was travelling in the aforesaid
Tempo which was bring driven by its Driver from Parbhani to
Osmanabad. On their way, Deceased asked the Driver to stop the Tempo
for urine purpose. When the Deceased was alighting the said Tempo, the
Driver lost his control over the Tempo and Deceased fell down and
suffered injuries. The Deceased was hospitalized, and he succumbed to
the injuries. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as Deceased
was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by working as a Cleaner and he was 20
years old at the time of accidental death, and they were dependent on
him.
2.2. The Claim Petition was contested by Respondents by filing
the Written Statements at Exhs. 25 and 27. They denied the contentions
of the Claimants. The Insurance Company took a plea that the Driver
was not holding the valid and effective driving license at the time of
3 FA653.2017.odt
accident. It was pleaded by Respondent No. 1, who was the owner of the
said Tempo that the Deceased fell down from the Tempo on his own
negligence and it was the act of God. They contended that the Claim
Petition be dismissed.
2.3. The learned Tribunal framed the issues below Exh. 28. The
Mother of Victim filed her Evidence Affidavit below Exh. 36 and she was
cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. The police papers,
copy of Insurance Certificate and other relevant documents were brought
on record during the evidence. On appreciating the evidence on record
and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the
Judgment and Award granting compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants
that the Appeal is preferred on the ground of Quantum. Though the
evidence was led by the Claimants, the learned Tribunal considered the
notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 4,500/-. The
multiplier is applied by taking into consideration the age of the Mother
instead of considering the age of Deceased. The interest should have
been granted from the date of Claim Petition. The amounts under
conventional heads are also not granted. He submitted that the Appeal be
allowed and the Compensation be enhanced.
4 FA653.2017.odt
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company that there was no documentary evidence in respect of the
monthly income of the Deceased and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly considered the notional income of Rs. 3,000/-. He fairly submitted
that, there was no dispute about applying proper multiplier by
considering the age of the Deceased and the interest should have been
from the date of Application and the other amounts under the
conventional heads are to be awarded. Judgments in Laxmi Devi and
others Versus Mohammad Tabbar and another, (2008) 12 SCC 165 and in
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat,
LAWS(SC)-2023-3-140, are cited.
5. Heard both the sides. Perused the evidence available on
record. In Laxmi Devi (supra), the previous judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court are considered and the multiplier is applied by considering
the age of the Deceased. In Shriram (supra), the paragraph from the
Judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it is observed that "reasonable figures
on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years." is quoted.
5 FA653.2017.odt
6. This is the Appeal by the Claimants. There is no Appeal by
the Respondents. Therefore, it is clear that, there is no dispute on the
aspects of death of the Deceased due to use of the aforesaid Tempo, the
said Tempo was insured with Respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company at
the time of accident, and the Claimants being the parents of the
Deceased. Except the bare contentions of the Claimants in the Claim
Petition and in the Evidence Affidavit of the Mother of the Deceased,
there is no evidence in respect of employment of Deceased either as a
Cleaner or anywhere else. There was no documentary evidence in
support of the Claim of Rs. 4,500/- as the monthly income of the
Deceased. The Accident is of March - 2009 and, therefore, consideration
of monthly income of the Deceased as Rs. 3,000/- by the learned Tribunal
cannot be faulted and no interference in that regard is warranted.
7. Considering the well settled position in law, the multiplier is
to be applied by taking into consideration the age of the Deceased at the
time of accident. The age of the Deceased as 20 years at the time of
accidental death is not in dispute and, therefore, the multiplier of 18 will
apply as per the Judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6 FA653.2017.odt
8. The learned Tribunal did not grant the addition of income
towards future prospects. As the Deceased was below 40 years of age,
there shall be 40% addition in his income towards future prospects in
view of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).
9. The deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses
is rightly applied by the learned Tribunal, as Deceased was bachelor.
10. The compensation towards conventional heads i.e. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses is to be granted as per the
Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co.
Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2019 (4) Mh.L.J. 1/MANU/SC/
1012/2018, as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.80,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- X 2), and
Rs.15,000/-, respectively.
11. As per the provisions of Section 171 of the M.V. Act, the
Tribunal when allows a Claim for compensation under the M.V. Act, may
direct in addition to the amount of compensation, Simple Interest at such
rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it
may specify in that behalf. Therefore, the interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,
appears to be proper, would apply from the date of Claim Petition, i.e.
31.12.2009.
7 FA653.2017.odt
12. In the light of the above observations, the compensation is
determined / calculated as under : -
Sr.No. Components Amount Total
1. Monthly Notional Income Rs.3,000/-
2. Addition of 40% towards Rs. 3000/- (Monthly
future prospects. Income) + Rs. 4,200/-
Rs.1200/- (40%)
3. 50% deduction towards Rs. 4,200 / 2 Rs. 2,100/-
personal expenses
4. Per year income Rs. 2100 X 12 Rs. 25,200/-
5. Multiplier of 18 Rs. 25,200 X 18 Rs. 4,53,600/-
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
7. Consortium Rs.40,000 X 2 Rs. 80,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Compensation payable to Claimants: Total - Rs.5,63,600/-
13. In view of the above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
[i] The Appeal is partly allowed with costs.
[ii] The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
modified as Rs. 5,63,600/- [Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Three
Thousand and Six Hundred] to be paid to the Appellants by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally, with interest
at the rate of 6% from the date of Claim Petition, i.e.
31.12.2009.
8 FA653.2017.odt
[iii] The apportionment of the compensation between the two
Claimants be made as directed by the learned Tribunal, i.e.
equally.
[iv] The R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.
[v] Award be prepared accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/06/2025 17:51:51
