Bombay High Court
Durga Sunil Palhate And Ors vs Bhausaheb Mohan Shinde And Anr on 4 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7604
{1}
14 sr.no. FA 2116.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2116 OF 2024
1] Durga W/o. Sunil Palhate,
Age 29 years, Occ. Household,
2] Siddharaj S/o. Sunil Palhate,
Age 6 years, Occ. Nil,
Applicant No.2 is minor through his
Legal guardian mother applicant No.1
3] Ramesh Ramlal Palhate,
Age 66 years, Occ. Labour.
4] Kashbai w/o. Ramesh Palhate,
Age 61 years, Occ. Household
All R/o. Mategaon, Tal. Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
.. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1] Bhausaheb Mohan Shinde,
Age 51, Occ. Business,
R/o. Karanji, Taluka Pathardi,
Ahmednagar
(owner of Mahindra Pickup No. MH-12 JF 7853)
2] Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Authorized Signatory/Manager,
Dare House, 2nd Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai 600 001.
(Iisurer of Mahindra Pickup No. MH-12/JF 7853)
.. RESPONDENTS
( original respondents)
Mr. Murar D. Deshpande, Advocate a/w. Mr. Sujit S. Kulkarni
Advocate for appellants
Mr. A.G. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2025.
{2}
14 sr.no. FA 2116.odt
JUDGMENT :
-
1] Heard learned advocates for respective parties. Original
claimants in MACP No. 522 of 2017 are before this Court seeking
enhancement of compensation against judgment and award dated
7.9.2022 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar.
2] Learned advocate for appellants submits that the Tribunal
has not appropriately considered income of deceased although bank
account statement reflects that last drawn salary of deceased for the
month of September, 2017 was Rs. 9320/-. He would further submit that
the Tribunal failed to grant compensation under caption of "loss of
consortium" to claimant Nos. 2 to 4. As such, award is inadequate.
3] Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent No.2
Insurer, however, supports the award contending that claimant could not
prove monthly income by leading cogent evidence. The bank entries as
regards salary income are fluctuating. The Tribunal has, therefore,
considered average income based on bank entries and worked out the
compensation. He would further submit that in view of judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance vs. Bhagat
Singh Rawat (Civil Appeal Nos. 2410 and 2412 of 2023) dated
27.3.2023, loss of consortium can be granted only as single head and not
independently to all dependents. Therefore, consortium of Rs. 40,000/-
as granted by Tribunal is justified.
4] Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed
that the deceased Sunil was in service of Badve Engineering Private
Limited at Aurangabad. The claimant in her evidence affidavit stated
that monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 9022/-. She produced copy of
{3}
14 sr.no. FA 2116.odt
passbook maintained with Central Bank of India. Apparently, in August,
2017, an amount of Rs. 9223/- was deposited, whereas, in September,
2017 an amount of Rs. 9320/- was deposited in bank account of
deceased towards salary. However, Tribunal taking the salary receipt for
July, 2017 considered the average income @ Rs. 8819/- and calculated
compensation. This Court is of the view that when, last month prior to
his death, salary receipt of deceased depicts Rs. 9000/- plus and claimant
No.1 has testified monthly salary of deceased to the tune of Rs. 9022/-
p.m. which is actually less than receipt, her statement on affidavit, ought
to have been accepted. The salary of deceased ought to have been
considered @ Rs. 9022/- p.m. as claimed.
5] So far as compensation towards loss of consortium is
concerned, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000/-. The Supreme Court
of India in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company vs.
Nanuram and others, reported in AIR 2019 SC (supp) 906 , observed that
loss of consortium to dependents of victim has to be granted under 3
counts (1) parental consortium (2) filial consortium (3) spousal
consortium. In present case, claimants are widow, minor son and parents
of deceased. Therefore, compensation under all three head was
permissible which shall be @ Rs. 40,000/- each. Therefore, under head
of "loss of consortium" claimants are entitled for additional compensation
of Rs. 1,20,000/-.
5] Although on this point, Mr. Choudhari relies on judgment of
the supreme court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others (2021) 11 SCC 780
(which also makes reference of judgment in case of Nanuram (supra))
Position has been further clarified in the matter of New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Somwani and others reported in (2020)9 SCC 644 ,
which provides grant of consortium to each of the claimants as per
{4}
14 sr.no. FA 2116.odt
aforesaid heads. Therefore, this court is inclined to rely upon Larger
Bench view of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of United India
Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra).
6] In view of aforesaid discussion, the compensation admissible
to claimants can be described in tabular form, as under
Sr. No. Particulars Amount Amount which
considered byought to have
Tribunal been considered
1. Monthly income 8,819 9022
2. Future prospects 13,229 (4410) 13533 (4511)
3. 1/4th deduction towards 9922(3307) 10150 (3383)
personal expenses
4. Annual Income 119064 121800
5. Multiplier of 17 2024088 2070600
6. Towards Consortium 40000 160000
7. Funeral Expenses 15000 15000
8. Loss of Estate 15000 15000
9. Total 20,94,088 22,60,600
10. 1,66,512
7] In tune with the aforesaid calculations, the award passed by
Tribunal needs to be modified. Claimants are, therefore, held entitled for
total compensation of Rs. 22,60,600/- as against Rs. 20,94,088/- as
awarded by Tribunal. Rest of the award passed by Tribunal. Rest of the
award passed by Tribunal shall mutatis mutandis apply to modified
award in this appeal.
8] First appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J]
grt/-
