Bombay High Court
Sandip Ganpat Mapari And Anr vs Ashok Mukandas Chopda And Anr on 6 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7611
1 fa343.25 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2025
1. Sandip Ganpat Mapari,
Age; 38 years, Occ; Service,
2. Manisha Sandip Mapari,
Age; 37 years, Occ; Household,
Both R/o Ralegaon Siddhi,
Tq. Parner, District Ahemednagar. ... APPELLANTS.
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. Ashok Mukandas Chopda,
Age; 45 years, Occ; Business,
R/o; Vandev Nagar,
Next to Roval Kort,Thergaon,
Chinchwad, Pune 411033
2. Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vishranti Malaram Towers No. 2/319,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam,
Chennai - 600097. ...RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Opponents)
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Wagh Umakant U.
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sandip P. Sonwane
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr.M.R. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : 06.03.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Appellants (Original Claimants) are impugning judgment and
award dated 02.09.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
2 fa343.25 Judgment
Ahmednagar, in MACP No. 337 of 2018 and seeking further enhancement
of compensation in this appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that in motor vehular accident dated
10.06.2018, son of Claimants aged about 10 years lost his life. Therefore,
Claim for compensation was instituted before Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ahmednagar seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with
interest @ 12 % p.a.
3. Claim was contested by respondents only on ground of
quantum.
4. Learned Tribunal after evaluation of evidence passed award
dated 02.09.2022, directing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to jointly and severally
pay compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- along with interest of 8% p.a.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants submits that
Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act is duty bound to grant just
compensation towards accidental death of victim. In present case,
claimants have lost their son, who was aged about 10 years. Assessment
of compensation by tribunal is not in consonance with exposition of law by
Supreme Court or this Court in similar matters. He would rely upon
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal and
Another Vs. Lala and others.1 & R.K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal
and others2. He would further urge that in case of death of minor aged
1 (2014) 1 SCC 244
2 (2009) 14 SCC 1
3 fa343.25 Judgment
about 10 years, tribunal could have considered minimum notional income
@ 30,000/- p.a and applied multiplier of "15". Apart from that
compensation towards non pecuniary heads ought to have awarded.
6. Per Contra, Mr.Deshmukh, learned Advocate relied upon
observations of Supreme Court in case of Meena Devi Vs. Nanu Chand
Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors (Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 5345 of 2019) to submit that in similar set of facts
Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along
with interest @ 7 % p.a. He invites attention of this Court to judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &
another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another 3, wherein, compensation
of Rs. 4,70,000/- was granted in case of death of 7 years child.
7. This Court considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties. Admittedly claimants lost their
son, who was pursuing education in 5 th Standard. He was aged about 10
years. In this background, only issue as to assessment of just
compensation has been pressed into service before this Court. In case of
death of child compensation can be assessed taking notional income. Even
in case of child victim multiplier "15" can be applied and compensation
can be assessed.
8. Looking to evidence adduced before tribunal in present case
3 (2022) 1 SCC 317
4 fa343.25 Judgment
there is no difficulty to adopt notional loss to Claimants @ 30,000/- p.a.
on account of death of child. On applying multiplier of "15", claimants
would be entitled to Rs. 4,50,000/- towards future loss of earning. Apart
from aforesaid compensation, Claimants are also entitled for
compensation towards non pecuniary losses, like loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses etc.
9. In that view of the matter, Claimant Nos. 1 & 2 would be
entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,000/- each towards loss of consortium,
Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral
expenses. Compensation can be demonstrated in tabular form as under :
Annual Loss to Claimants Rs. 30,000/-
Multiplier '15' (30,000 x 15) Rs. 4,50,000/-
Filial consortium for Sandip (Father) Rs. 44,000/-
Filial consortium for Manisha (Mother) Rs. 44,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
Funeral, transportation, ambulance etc. Rs. 16,500/-
Total compensation to be awarded Rs. 5,71,000/-
Tribunal granted Rs. 2,55,000/- @ 8% p.a.
Amount to be enhanced Rs. 5,71,000 - 2,55,000 =
Rs. 3,16,000/-
10. In result, following order :
ORDER
(i) First Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Judgment and award passed by tribunal is
modified.
(iii) Claimants are held entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs and Sixty Thousand
Only) from respondent Nos. 1 & 2 along with interest
@ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization of entire amount.
5 fa343.25 Judgment
(iv) Amount already deposited and paid as per
award passed by tribunal shall be appropriated.
(v) Compensation amount shall be apportioned
equally amongst Claimant Nos. 1 & 2.
(vi) Respondent shall deposit aforesaid amount
within a period of two months from today.
(vii) On deposit of said amount, it shall be disbursed
to the Claimants.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
