Bombay High Court
Anuradha @ Rakhiashok Dhabekar And Ors vs Dadaso Krishna Galave And Anr on 28 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:9185
1 fa 761.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2010
1. Anuradha @ Rakhi Ashok Dhabekar
Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Dudhgaon, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Udayraje Ashok Dhabekar,
Age : 3 years, Minor u/g of his
mother appellant No. 1.
3. Kundlik Ambadas Dhabekar
Since deceased through L.Rs.
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Sarubai W/o Kundlik Dhabekar,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2. .. Appellants
Versus
1. Dadaso Krishna Galave,
Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
R/o Patane Plot, Near Ram
Mandir, Sangli, Dist. Sangli.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through the Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Shubhrai Towers, Datta Chowk,
Solapur, Dist. Solapur. .. Respondents
Shri P. S. Chavan, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 2.
2 fa 761.10
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR ORDERS ON : 21.03.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT :
. Heard both sides.
2. The appellants/original claimants are challenging
judgment and award dated 08.12.2009 passed by the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in M. A.
C. P. NO. 228 of 2007, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-
recoverable from the respondents with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i. e.
16.08.2007,
3. The sole earning member in the family namely Ashok,
husband of the appellant No. 1 met with an accident on
25.05.2007, when he was 36 years old. He claims to have been
working as a supervisor with Terna Sugar Factory with salary of
Rs. 6,200/- per month. He claims to have additional income from
agricultural land of 12 acres to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per
annum. Appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The
claim is contested by the respondents on various grounds.
4. The Tribunal disbelieved that the deceased was serving as
supervisor for want of evidence. But the agricultural income of
3 fa 761.10
Rs. 15,000/- per annum was accepted and accordingly loss of
future income was calculated. The multiplier of 16 was applied
and 1/3 amount of income was deducted for personal expenses.
Under non pecuniary head an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was
awarded. Thus appellants were awarded Rs. 1,75,000/-.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Chavan appearing for the appellants
would submit that appellants are entitled to 40% for the future
prospectus and Rs. 8,000/- per month as loss of income
considering minimum wages policy. He would submit that
considering dependency, for personal expenses 1/4 amount is
deductible, instead of 1/3. For non pecuniary heads, the
appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-. He seeks to rely on the
following judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court.
I. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
II. Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104.
III. Dharampal and others Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2008 SC 2312.
IV. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram and others reported in 2019(4) Mh.L.J. 1.
V. Gangubai Dashrath Varade Vs. Dayanand Dhondiram
Sonar reported in AIROnline 2023 BOM 1058.
6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent/insurance
4 fa 761.10
company Mr. Shailesh Chapalgaonkar would vehemently oppose
the submissions of the appellants. He would submit that no
evidence was adduced to show that deceased was earning to the
tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month from agricultural work. He would
submit that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded
by the Tribunal. It is submitted that all aspects of the matter
have been dealt with and plausible view has been taken by the
Tribunal.
7. Having considered rival submissions of the parties, the
dispute is restricted to the quantum of compensation. Both the
counsel appearing for the contesting parties have restricted their
submissions to the quantum of compensation. This Court,
therefore, need not consider that the appellants had source from
service as supervisor with the sugar factory.
8. Undisputedly, the notification dated 31.05.2010 issued by
the Central Government prescribes minimum wages of Rs.
8,000/- per month. The appellants failed to prove income from
the agricultural work and, therefore, notionally income of Rs.
15,000/- per annum from the agricultural income was considered
by the Tribunal. In view of ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 in the matters of
Jitendra Vs. Sadiya in Civil Appeal No. 2209 of 2025 and
Gurpreet Kaur and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others
reported in 2022 SC Online SC 1778, Rs. 8,000/- per month should be
considered as income.
5 fa 761.10
9. Learned Tribunal did not award anything towards future
prospects. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra),
40% of the established income of the deceased shall be considered
for future prospects. Similarly the Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, which is
incorrect. The appellants who are four in number are the
dependents and, therefore, it is permissible to deduct 1/4th of the
income towards personal expenses. For non pecuniary loss
amount of only Rs. 15,000/- was awarded, which is grossly
inadequate. The appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- under
the said head in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another (supra).
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per
annum. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company
submits that bank's rate of interest is not to the tune of 12% per
annum. I find it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 7%
per annum on the enhanced compensation. In that view of the
matter, the appellants are entitled to compensation in following
manner.
6 fa 761.10
Sr. Compensation Head Amount
No.
01. Loss of annual earning (8,000/- X 12) 96,000/-
02. Add 40% future prospects 1,34,400/-
(96,000/- + 38,400)
03. Deduction of 1/4th towards personal 1,00,800/-
expenses (1,34,400/- - 33,600/-)
04. Multiplier of 16 (1,00,800/- x 16) 16,12,800/-
05. Non pecuniary loss 1,50,000/-
06. Total compensation to be paid 17,62,800/-
07. Minus Compensation already paid 1,75,000/-
Enhancement of compensation 15,87,800/-
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal deserves to be
allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal shall be
substituted by following order :
ORDER
A. The first appeal is partly allowed.
B. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally pay an
amount of Rs. 15,87,800/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Seven
thousands Eight hundred only) to the appellants/claimants along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing
of petition till realization of entire amount of compensation.
C. On depositing the amount by the respondents, same shall
be disbursed to the appellants/claimants.
7 fa 761.10
D. The appellants/claimants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.
E. Award be drawn up accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/March 25
