[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Parvatibai Shriram Lone And Others vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:11448
FA-738-2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2014
1. Parvatibai w/o. Shriram Lone [Died]
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Housewife,
2. Anand S/o. Shriram Lone,
Age : 29 years, Occu. : Unemployed,
3. Rastrapal S/o. Shriram Lone,
Age : 27 years, Occu. : Education,
4. Hirabai W/o. Gangaram Lone,
Age : 67 years, Occu. : Nil.,
All R/o. Annabhau Sathe Chowk, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded (M.S.). ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Nanded,
Through its Divisional Controller,
Divisional Office at Workshop, Nanded,
Tq & Dist. Nanded. ... Respondent.
.....
Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Atul Pawar (Through V.C.) h/f. Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Advocate
for Respondent - MSRTC.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Original claimants have preferred an instant appeal by getting
FA-738-2014
dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 03.04.2013 passed by learned
District Judge -1, Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nanded in M.A.C.P. No. 776 OF 2009, which was a death claim.
2. In short, on 31.07.2009, deceased Shriram Gangaram Lone
was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.MH-26-M-4816 from
Ardhapur to Nanded. In the vicinity of New Asna Bridge on Nanded -
Hingoli Road, he suffered a dash from a Tempo bearing No.MH-26-H-845,
causing fatal injuries, and he succumbed to the injuries while being shifted
to the hospital. Crime was registered against a Tempo driver.
His heirs, i.e. wife, sons and mother, set up above accident
claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,00,000/-, on the
premise that, deceased Shriram was working as 'Junior Technician' and
earning salary of Rs.16,177/-. On account of his demise in the accident,
having lost a source of income and dependency, they set up above claim
which was contested by respondent MSRTC by filing written statement at
Exh.12 denying rash and negligent driving by the driver. Their specific
stand was that, deceased suffered dash given by the mini-door coming from
the opposite direction, and deceased collapsed near the right side tyre of the
S.T. bus, thereby setting up a case that the Insurance Company is not liable.
FA-738-2014
After considering the above contentions of each of the side,
learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim directing compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,00,506/- to be paid by respondent along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for appellants pointed out that, present appeal
is primarily for enhancement. He would submit that, firstly, learned
Tribunal has not considered gross salary earned by deceased, and has
merely took into account the only net salary, which accordingly to him, is
an erroneous approach. He also criticized the judgment and award on the
ground that the deceased was held to be 30% contributory negligent in the
above accident, and he also took exception to the application of multiplier
of 9 instead of 13. On above grounds, appeal is sought to be allowed.
In support of his contentions, he seeks reliance on the following
rulings :
(i) Anjali Vilas Deshpande and Ors. v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta and
Anr. in First Appeal No.17 of 2022 (Bombay High Court);
(ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Ors. In
Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
Nos.976-977 of 2020), (The Supreme Court of India);
(iii) Smt. Anjali & Ors. v. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 1012.
FA-738-2014
4. Learned counsel for respondent MSRTC justified the order of
Tribunal and pointed out that, there is correct computation of
compensation. Secondly, there was a direct eye witness account, and the
same has prevailed while recording the finding of contributory negligence
and thus according to him, there being no infirmity, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
5. On above lines and objections, record and evidence are put to
scrutiny. There is no dispute about deceased suffering an accident while
riding a motorcycle on 31.07.2009. On the one hand, according to
claimants, S.T. driver is solely responsible and the entire liability ought to
have been fixed on the bus driver. There was no evidence to draw
conclusion that deceased was also 30% liable for contributory negligence.
6. On taking survey of the record, it is emerging that, claimants
in support of their case had adduced evidence of wife of deceased at Exh.26
and has placed reliance on the documentary evidence like FIR Exh.27, Spot
Panchanama Exh.28, Inquest Panchanama Exh.29, P.M. report Exh.30, copy
of charge sheet Exh. 34 and statements of witnesses at Exhs.35, 36, 37 and
39 as well as supplementary statements at Exhs.38 and 40.
7. Let us first deal with the issue of correctness of the finding the
S.T. bus driver to be negligent to extent of 70% and deceased to be
FA-738-2014
negligent to the extent of 30% and whether Tribunal error in fixing the
contributory liability to such extent.
8. In short, It is the case of claimants that, there was no evidence
to show that deceased was also negligent in any manner. In fact, the
responsibility lies with the S.T. driver. He being driving of heavy vehicle,
was expected to be more vigilant. That, there was no evidence to show that,
there was any fault on the part of deceased so as to attribute contributory
negligence. In the light of above objection, record is put to scrutiny and it is
revealed that there is testimony of wife of deceased and one Hanumant
Nanarao Puyyad. Admittedly, wife was not an eye witness, but Hanumant
claims to be an eye witness and he has also testified before the Tribunal by
adduced evidence at Exh.43. Though he was cross examined, his statement
and testimony to the extent of deceased while attempting to overtake the
bus, seems to have come ahead of the bus and seems to have suffered by a
mini-door vehicle coming from opposite directions. Such evidence has not
been rendered doubtful or unbelievable.
9. Even, the panchanama supports the finding that while
attempting to overtake the bus, the mishap occurred. It seems to be the case
that, in attempting to overtake another vehicle, dash has been given.
Apparently, Hanumant has given statement immediately on next date. It is
also neither the case, nor is there any suggestion that this witness is
FA-738-2014
deposing falsely. Rather he is a witness adduced by claimant themselves,
and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of claimants that evidence of
Hanumant is not worthy of credence or not relevant piece of evidence.
Consequently, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for
appellant that, learned trial Court erred in attributing 30% to the deceased.
10. Second objection of appellant is that, learned Tribunal has
erred in applying the multiplier 9 instead of 13. From the pleadings before
the learned Tribunal, as well as in the ground (D) of the memo of First
Appeal, age of deceased reported to be 55 years. However, the leaving
certificate of deceased at Exh.32, which is also part of record, shows his
date of birth as 15.01.1953, which reflect his age as over 56 years. In view
of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, for said
age group multiplier applicable is 9 and therefore, there does not seem to
be error on the part of Tribunal in applying said multiplier.
11. The next submission urged before this Court is that the learned
Tribunal failed to correctly determine the net salary of the deceased.
12. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Manasvi Jain v.
Delhi Transport Corporation, MANU/SC/ 0355/2014, referring to its earlier
decision in Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. v. Karam Singh and Ors.,
FA-738-2014
MANU/SC/0468/2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the
issue of deduction of taxes, contributions etc. for arriving at the figure of
net monthly income, held that, "While ascertaining the income of the
deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions
towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayment of loans etc., should not
be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge
alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased"
13. Considering the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, here, learned Tribunal seems to have erred in deducting the
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Life Insurance premium, repayment of
loans (i.e. credit society recovery and CPF Advances), while arriving at net
salary.
As per the salary certificate at Exh.33, the gross salary of the
deceased was Rs.16,177/-. The deductions shown in the salary certificate
towards CPF Rs.1740/-, repayment of loan (i.e. Credit Society Recovery Rs.
5085/-, 1st CPF advance of Rs. 1940 and 2 nd CPF advance Rs.2220/-),
EDWTF Rs.30, Staff Welfare Fund Rs.3/- and LIC premium of Rs.822,
totaling Rs.11840/- should not be deducted while arriving at net salary of
deceased. Only permissible deduction seems to be of Rs.200 towards
Professional Tax, after which, his net monthly income comes to
Rs.15,977/-.
FA-738-2014
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for
following compensation.
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Annual Income (Rs.15,977 x 12 ) 1,91,724/-
2. Less 1/3rd deduction towards personal 1,27,816/-
expenses.
(Rs.1,91,724 - Rs. 63,908)
3. Multiplier of 09 (1,27,816 X 9) 11,50,344/-
4. Less 30% Contributory Negligence of deceased 8,05,241/-
(Rs.11,50,344 - Rs. 3,45,103)
5. Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
6. Loss of Estate (As per Tribunal) 47,000/-
7. Loss of Love and Affection (As per Tribunal) 40,000/-
Total compensation to be paid 9,07,241/-
8. Compensation awarded by Tribunal 3,00,506/-
9. Total Enhanced Compensation 6,06,735/-
(i.e. Rs.9,07,241 - 3,00,506)
15. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2013, passed by the
learned District Judge -1, Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Nanded in M.A.C.P. No. 776 of 2009, is modified.
FA-738-2014
(iii) Respondent to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.6,06,735/- to
claimants within 12 weeks from today along with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of registration of claim petition till its realization.
(iv) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(v) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation as per rules.
(vi) On deposit of the amount by respondent, appellants/claimants are
permitted to withdraw the same.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
