[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Abad vs Gauri Anil Pampatwar And Ors on 7 May, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:20573
{1} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2012
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10108 OF 2011 IN FA/1054/2012
. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Aurangabad, Through its Divisional
Manager, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ..Appellant
(Org. Respondent No.2)
Versus
1. Gauri W/o Anil Pampatwar
Age: 31 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Lakmanya Nagar, Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
2. Mranali D/o. Anil Pampatwar
Age: 12 years, Occu. Education,
3. Tanvi D/o Anil Pampatwar
Age: 7 years, Occu.: Nil,
(Respondent nos.2 & 3 are minors
U/g of their real mother respondent no.1)
4. Premilabai W/o. Anantrao Pampatwar
Age: 63 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
5. Hamid S/o Mehandibhai Nathan
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Nathani Collection,
Old Mondha, Parbhani,
District Parbhani. ..Respondents
(Respdt.Nos.1 to 4 - Org. Claimants
Respdt. No.5 - Org. Respdt.No.1)
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.S.R.Bodade
Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr.Ashish Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr.G.S.Rane
...
{2} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2012
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10716 OF 2011 IN FA/1056/2012
. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Aurangabad, Through its Divisional
Manager, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ..Appellant
(Org. Respondent No.2)
Versus
1. Surekha W/o Sanjay Choudhary
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Bori, Taluka Jintur,
District Parbhani.
2. Shubham S/o Sanjay Choudhary
Age: 12 years, Occu.: Education,
3. Sumit S/o Sanjay Choudhary
Age: 10 years, Occu.: Nil,
(Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors
U/g of their real mother respondent No.1)
4. Shivdasrao S/o Namdeorao Choudhary
Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. : As above.
5. Shantabai W/o Shivdasrao Choudhary
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
6. Hamid S/o Mehandibhai Nathani
Age; Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Nathani Collection,
Old Mondha, Parbhani,
District Parbhani. ..Respondents
(Respdt.Nos.1 to 5 - Org. Claimants
Respdt. No.6 - Org. Respdt.No.1)
{3} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.S.R.Bodade
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr.Vaibhav Pawar
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr.G.S.Rane
....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 20 APRIL, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07 MAY, 2026
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Both the above referred appeals take exception to common
judgment and award dated 15-01-2011 passed by learned Ex-Officio
Member, MACT, Parbhani in MACP Nos.277 of 2006 and 280 of 2006,
which were instituted by legal heirs of deceased respectively.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief snapshot of claimants' case before Tribunal is that, on
04-08-2006, deceased Sanjay Choudhari, deceased Anil Pampatrao
and others were travelling in Scorpio Jeep bearing No.MH-22 K-7777
from Parbhani towards Mahabaleshwar to attend a Seminar. On
05-08-2006 at around 05:00 a.m., near the bridge of Mandave
Shivar, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle owned
by original respondent no.1 Hamid, the said Jeep turned turtle and
toppled. Sanjay, Anil and other incumbents of the vehicle, suffered
{4} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
grievous injuries. Sanjay and Anil succumbed to the fatal injuries.
Crime was registered against driver of the Scorpio Jeep at Natepute
Police Station, Tq.Malshiras, Dist.Solapur. Therefore, legal heirs of
Sanjay and Anil set up distinct claim petitions under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation.
Both claim petitions were resisted by both respondent
no.1/owner of the vehicle as well as respondent no.2/vehicle insurer
by filing written statements. Learned Tribunal appreciated the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and by common
judgment and award dated 15-01-2011, partly allowed the claim
petitions.
Getting dissatisfied by the same, original respondent no.2
Insurance Company come up in appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of Appellant Insurance Company :
3. Mr.Bodade, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on
record written notes of arguments and common grounds in each of
the appeals are that false claim is set up, secondly negligence and
rashness on the part of driver of the Jeep to be not substantiated,
thirdly, excess passengers were being carried, fourthly inspite it being
a private vehicle, passengers were paid passengers and therefore,
{5} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
there was breach of conditions of the Policy. Findings of learned
Tribunal are also criticized for partly allowing claim petitions in
absence of cogent and reliable evidence on the points of age and
business income. He submits that, there is failure of learned Tribunal
to appreciate the oral evidence adduced by the Insurance Company.
Several citations, which are given below, are also relied in support of
its contention :
(a) Amrit Paul Singh and Anr. v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.
And Ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 5648.
(b) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Solapur v. Hirabai Vithal
Nikam and Others, 1988 Mh.L.J.317.
(c) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ratna Popat Patil and
Another, 2011 (2) Bom.C.R. 711.
(d) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. v. Mookambka C/o.
Rajanna and Ors., 2011 STPL 23713 Karnataka.
(e) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deoram s/o
Shivram Jadhav and Others, 2018 (2) Mh.L.J., 101
(f) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Suman Bhaskar Pawar
and Others, 2010(2) Mh.L.J., 177.
(g) National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Challa Upendra Rao and Others
(2004) 8 SCC 517.
(h) Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S.Mylarappa and Ors., AIR 2008
SC 2545.
On behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 4 (original claimants) in
FA/1054/2012 :
4. These respondent nos.1 to 4/original claimants had instituted
MACP No.280 of 2006 on account of demise of Anil Pampatwar in
the same accident. Learned counsel for these claimants also justifies
{6} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
and supports the findings of the learned Tribunal to the extent of
policy to be comprehensive policy. That, incumbent deceased
travelling in a private Jeep in the capacity of friend of owner of Jeep
and not in the capacity of fare paying passenger. Learned counsel
also justifies the order of learned Tribunal directing Insurance
Company to pay compensation.
However, these respondent nos.1 to 4/original claimants are
primarily dissatisfied by quantum awarded by learned Tribunal and it
is their case that though there is no cross appeal or objection, in view
of settled law in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others,
(2003) 2 SCC 274, and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Ors. v.
Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 237, including
appeals decided by this Court, copies of which are placed on record,
respondent nos.1 to 4/original claimants are entitled for just
compensation as grossly inadequate compensation has been granted
in spite of deceased being a Tax payer and paying income tax
regularly.
It is pointed out that, even there is error on the part of learned
Tribunal in not granting compensation under the head of consortium
as laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130, as well as future prospects as
{7} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Co.Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680. Fault is
also found on the part of learned Tribunal in applying wrong
multiplier. For above reasons, in absence of cross- appeal, quantum
urged to be enhanced.
On behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 5 (original claimants) in
FA/1056/2012 :
5. Written notes of arguments are also tendered by learned
counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5/original claimants, wherein it is
contended that, there was comprehensive/package policy of which
there is no denial and therefore, each of the incumbents of the
vehicle was liable to be indemnified. That, Insurance Company failed
to discharge its burden of proving that vehicle was used for carrying
paid passengers and there to be no evidence in that regard. It is
asserted that only eight passengers were travelling in the Jeep at the
time of incident and therefore, Insurance Company failed to
demonstrate that excess passengers been carried. It is submitted
that, more particularly, Insurance Company had satisfied own
damaged claim and amount is already paid to the owner in
pursuance to judgment and order dated 16-02-2015 passed by the
learned Member, National Commission in Revision Petition No.1299
{8} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
of 2009.
6. Criticizing the oral evidence, it is submitted that, RW1
Investigator's report is false and merely tailored to suit the case of
Insurance Company. That, no witnesses, whose statements are
allegedly recorded, are examined and moreover, this witness has
admitted that statements of driver and owner were not recorded of
which adverse inference needs to be drawn and even Insurance
Company failed to show that there was any breach of conditions for
want of driving licence.
It is further submitted that, as per decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra), an
amount of Rs.40,000/- each needs to be granted towards consortium
and as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi and Others (supra), appropriate amount towards future
prospects is also required to be granted. For all above reasons,
appeals are sought to be dismissed for want of merits.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on
following rulings :
(a) United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K.M.Poonam & Others,
2015(15) SCC 297.
(b) National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Baljit Kaur & Others, 2004
(5) All M.R. 238.
{9} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
(c) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Veena & Others, 2017 DGLS
(Bom) 1842.
(d) Rambhau Awadut Gawai and Others v. Shivlal Salikram Belsare and
Another, 2020 DGLS (Bom) 404.
(e) Manuara Khatun and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others,
2017 DGLS (SC) 185.
(f) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ramesh, 2017 DGLS (Bom.)
2240.
On behalf of owner of vehicle (Respondent no.5 in FA/1054/2012
and Respondent No.6 in FA/1056/2012) :
7. Owner of the vehicle, which met accident, has also preferred
distinct appeal dissatisfied by grant of compensation with further
directions to pay the same jointly and severally. Learned counsel for
owner of vehicle would submit that learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. He justifies and
supports impugned judgment and award and thereby contends that
there is no merit in the appeals of Insurance Company and prays to
dismiss the appeals.
8. Re-appreciated evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT
I) Evidence in MACP No.280 2006
On behalf of original Claimants :
9. Wife of deceased Anil namely Gauri has deposed at exh.23
contending that her husband in the company of Sanjay, Shivaji,
{10} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
Murlidhar, Dilip and Kukreja were travelling from Parbhani to
Mahabaleshwar in Scorpio Jeep bearing No.MH-22 K-7777. That, on
05-08-2006 at around 05:00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Scorpio Jeep, the vehicle turned turtle in the vicinity
of Mandave bridge causing injuries to incumbents including
deceased. That, for the same, crime bearing no. 46 of 2006 for
offence under Section 279, 304(A), 337, 338, 427 of the IPC was
registered against Jeep Driver
10. According to her, at the time of accident, deceased was 32
years of age and was conducting business of electrical appliances and
items and his earnings from such income was their source of
livelihood. That, apart from earning of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum
from said business, deceased also earned Rs.1,00,000/- from
agricultural activity and under various heads claim to the tune of
Rs.73,50,000/- was ascertained from respondents jointly and
severally.
While under cross-examination by respondent no.2, she has
stated that deceased husband has three brothers. That, all the
brothers looked-after the business of electronics. That, electrical
shop was run under the name as "Pandurang Electricals" and the said
{11} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
shop is now closed. That, the brothers of her husband are residing
separately and they are in the business of electronics. She admitted
that except this business, her husband was not doing any other
business. She stated that two Jeeps were proceeding towards
Mahabaleshwar on the date of accident. That, her husband was
doing business of electronics since 1990. Rest of the suggestions are
denied.
While under cross-examination on behalf of respondent no.1,
witness admitted that respondent no.1 was friend of her husband.
Rest of the suggestions are denied.
11. PW-2 Satyan Sitaram Gundalwar is Tax Consultant and he
deposed at exh.29 that he runs M/s.S.R.Gundalwar and Company at
Parbhani. That, they have prepared and filed returns of the
"Pandurang Enterprises" since 7-8 years. He has identified the IT
returns documents at exh.30 to 32, which bears signature of his
father. He also identified IT returns documents at exh.33 to 35. He
deposed that the net income of "Pandurang Enterprises" for FY 2004-
05 was Rs.3,41,760/-. That, for FY 2005-06, net income was
Rs.5,56,867/- and for FY 2006-07, net income was Rs.10,35,333/-.
While under cross-examination this witness admitted that
{12} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
every balance sheets have signed by his father. He answered that, his
father is alive. He answered that, it is individual assessment of
proprietary firm. He answered that, tax returns are prepared and
filed by his father. That, death of deceased Anil occurred on
05-08-2006. That, his father was preparing balance sheets of the
said firm since 2001. That, he can file balance sheets since 2001 to
2004 of the 'Pandurang Enterprises'. He answered that returns for
2004-05 were filed in the life time of deceased Anil and returns for
the year 2005 to 2007 were filed after death of deceased. He
answered that they prepare the balance sheet as per the information
given by the parties. He answered that all the balance sheets of the
brother of deceased Anil are prepared by him. Rest all is denial.
II) Evidence in MACP No.277 2006 :
On behalf of original Claimants :
12. Wife of deceased Sanjay namely Surekha set up a case alleging
accident of the vehicle occupied by her husband Sanjay with others
during travel to Mahabaleshwar and their vehicle meeting accident
on 05-08-2006 causing fatal injuries to her husband as a result of
which he died and crime was registered against driver of the Jeep.
She further deposed that, deceased who was 33 years of age,
{13} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
was in the business of electrical items and earned Rs.1,20,000/- per
year along with agricultural income and thereby claim to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- under distinct heads was claimed for.
While under cross-examination by respondent no.2, this
witness answered that the electrical shop was run under the name as
"Durga Electricals" at Bori and the said shop is now closed. She
answered that, brothers of her husband reside separately and they
are agriculturists. She answered that two Jeeps were proceedings
towards Mahabaleshwar on the date of accident. She admitted that,
various shop keepers were travelling in the Jeep and they all were
friends. She answered that, except the shop, her husband was not
owner of other property. She answered that, her husband was doing
the business of electricals since 2002. Rest all is denial.
While under cross-examination by respondent no.1, witness
admitted that respondent no.1 was friend of her husband. Rest is all
denial.
On behalf of Respondent no.2/Insurance Company :
13. RW-1 Kishan Sakharam Pohekar, witness no.1 for respondent
no.2 is Investigator and at exh.28 he deposed that, he is retired from
Police Department. That, Insurance Company has engaged him as
{14} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
Investigator in the accident cases since last ten years. That, he was
appointed to inquire about Jeep bearing no.MH-22 K-7777 involved
in the accident. That, accordingly he collected papers. That, he
recorded statements of six injured persons namely Murlidhar, Sanjay,
Shivaji, Shivram, residents of Bori. That, he also recorded statements
of Raghunath, Shamrao, resident of Barshi and Ganpatrao resident of
Jintoor. He identified xerox copies of their statements at exh.29
to 35. He deposed that, it reveals from the statements recorded of
injured that, these persons hired the offending Jeep for proceeding to
pilgrimage Mahabaleshwar. That, 14 persons were travelling in said
Jeep. That, the list of said persons are at exh.36. That, accordingly,
he has prepared investigation report exh.37.
While under cross-examination on behalf of petitioner, he
admitted that he has not obtained signatures of all injured persons on
their statements in presence of Sarpancha and Police Patil of their
village. Rest is all denial.
While under cross-examination on behalf of respondent no.1,
witness answered that he has filed letter of his appointment. He
answered that he has collected documentary evidence i.e. statement
of witnesses to show that owner of the vehicle came at the spot of
incident. Rest is all denial.
{15} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
14. RW-2 Ramgopal Madanlalji Darak, witness no.2 for respondent
no.2, deposed at exh.38 that he is Branch Manager of New India
Insurance Company since last five years. That, the Jeep involved in
the accident was insured with their Insurance Company. That, nature
of policy is "Private Car Policy" and it covers own damages and
liability of 'Third Party', P.A. for Rs.1,00,000/- each of eight unnamed
passengers and liability of driver under W.C.Act. That, unlimited
liability of passengers of the offending Jeep is not covered under the
Policy. That, P.A. means 'Personal Accident' and it covers death and
100% permanent disability. That, in such circumstances, Insurance
Company is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- maximum only. That, the
original Policy is handed over to the insurer (owner of the offending
Jeep) and he has filed office copy of the same, which he identified at
exh.39. That, company is not responsible for unlimited liability to
pay compensation.
While under cross-examination on behalf of petitioner, witness
admitted that, prior to issuing insurance policy, he has obtained
proposal form and he is ready to file the same. He answered that T.P.
means third party premium and Insurance Company had taken
Rs.700/- as T.P. He answered that as per T.P., it creates unlimited
{16} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
liability as far as third party is concerned. He admitted that Rs.400/-
is taken as IMT i.e. Indian Motor Tariff. He admitted that, it is
comprehensive policy. He answered that, policy covers for any
person other than hire and reward. Rest is all denial.
ANALYSIS
15. On re-appreciation of the evidence primarily taking into
account testimony of respondents/claimants/legal heirs of deceased
Sanjay Choudhary and deceased Anil Pampatwar, and also in the
light of availability of FIR, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama,
and the fact that vehicle toppled without involvement of other
vehicle, there is no hesitation to hold that, Scorpio vehicle met with
an accident and there was negligence on the part of driver of the said
vehicle. Therefore, findings to that extent reached at by learned
Tribunal cannot be faulted at.
16. Here, appeals are primarily and fundamentally preferred on
the ground that, as excess passengers than permitted were travelling,
there was breach of policy condition and moreover, injured and
deceased being fare paying passengers, in spite of vehicle being a
private Jeep, also there was breach of policy condition, on both above
counts, Insurance Company was not liable.
{17} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
After considering the evidence of witnesses adduced by
appellant Insurance Company, more particularly, PW2 who was a
Branch Manager, it is noticed that he has candidly admitted that
policy drawn of the vehicle was comprehensive policy.
It would be profitable to refer and rely on the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 473,
the Hon'ble Apex Court and relevant paragraph is as under :
"21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no
scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would
cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation
for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy"
stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package
Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and
the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has
commanded the insurance companies stating that a
"Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there
cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify
that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the
"Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of
an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/
Package Policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects
were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (2009 AIR SCW
5325) (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a
larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity
to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which
is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by
issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment
{18} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the
same."
Consequently, in the light of above discussion, here, there
being no convincing or conclusive evidence to show that both
deceased were travelling in the capacity of paid passengers,
submission raised before this Court that appellant Insurance
Company is not liable, cannot be allowed and sustained. Policy
being comprehensive one, Insurance Company cannot evade or
escape liability, more particularly when Insurance Company in
support its contention of excess passengers being carried than
permissible, has not adduced evidence of either driver or of the
owner and therefore, Insurance Company failed to discharge its
burden. Witness of Insurance Company RW1, who was none other
Investigator, has admitted that no statements were recorded to
ascertain that occupants of the vehicle had paid charges or not. For
above reasons, the above ground raised by appellant Insurance
Company has no force.
17. As regards to grant of compensation is concerned, except
stating that there was excess compensation and there to be no
evidence, it is not demonstrated as to how it is excess and for what
reason, as there is nothing brought on record.
{19} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
18. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has relied
on as many as eight Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court,
but how the same are useful to the appellant has not been clarified or
elaborated so as to take recourse to the same. Merely a bunch of
citations has been tendered across the bar.
19. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to
4/original claimants in First Appeal No.1054 of 2012, submits that
the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence in its correct perspective and granted meager compensation
to the claimants. He submits that, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Nagappa (supra) and Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi and Ors. (supra), in absence of cross-appeal or
objection, this Court can grant just compensation to meet ends of
justice.
He invited attention of this Court to the Income Tax Return
(ITR) documents of deceased Anil filed at exh.33, 34 and 35 and also
to the evidence of PW2 Tax Consultant and submits that the said
documents may be taken into account for considering the income of
deceased Anil.
Having gone through said documentary evidence at exh.33, 34
{20} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
and 35, it is clear that there are ITR documents for the period 2004-
2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. It is noticed that ITR 2006-2007 is
post occurrence and therefore, cannot be relied. There is no denial
that deceased Anil was conducting business of sale of electrical and
electronic appliances. Here, there is evidence of PW2 Tax
Consultant, which lends support to the case of respondent nos.1 to
4/claimants about nature of business conducted by deceased Anil.
The date of incident is 05-08-2006, therefore, ITR document at
exh.33 can safely be considered. It is emerging that, the income of
deceased Anil for the year 2004-2005 and for the year 2005-2006 is
not similar and rather it is fluctuating. Deceased Anil was carrying
out business of supply of electricals though jointly with his brothers
but his wife has answered in cross-examination that they resided
separately. ITR documents also stand in the name of deceased Anil.
While conducting business, sometimes, there is more business and
sometimes, there is less business or no business. Business income is
admittedly fluctuating every year. Here, therefore, it would be
appropriate to consider average income of deceased Anil as
Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and to further make it a base for deriving
monthly income i.e. approximately Rs.16,667/-.
Though in the evidence, it is deposed by the claimant Gauri
{21} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
that deceased Anil was earning Rs.1,00,000/- from agricultural
activity, there is no distinct evidence on record to that extent.
20. Mr.Pawar, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 (original
claimants) in First Appeal No.1056 of 2012, merely submits that as
per the settled law, the claimants are entitled for amount towards
future prospects as well as Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium.
21. This Court is of the opinion that, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra)
and Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the claimants in both these
appeals are entitled for enhancement in compensation i.e.
Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. Apart from this, the claimants
are also entitled for amount of 40% of established income towards
future prospects.
As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is
correct.
In view of above discussion, the calculation of compensation in
{22} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
both these appeals are as under :
First Appeal No.1054 of 2012 (MACP No.280 of 2006) :
Sr. Particulars Amount
No. (Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Annual Income = 2,00,000 2,00,000
2 Add Future prospects 40% = 2,00,000 + 80,000 2,80,000
3 Amount after 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses 2,10,000
(2,80,000 - 70,000)
4 Multiplier of 16 (2,10,000 x 16) 33,60,000
5 Non-pecuniary Losses : 1,90,000
A)Loss of consortium (40,000 x 4)= Rs.1,60,000
B) Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000
C) Funeral Expenses= Rs.15,000
6 Total Compensation to be paid 35,50,000
7 Less - Compensation awarded by Tribunal 18,85,000
Total enhanced amount of compensation 16,65,000
First Appeal No.1056 of 2012 (MACP No.277 of 2006) :
Sr. Particulars Amount
No. (Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Annual Income = 60,000 60,000
2 Add Future prospects 40% = 60,000 + 24,000 84,000
3 Amount after 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses 63,000
(84,000 - 21,000)
4 Multiplier of 16 (63,000 x 16) 10,08,000
5 Non-pecuniary Losses : 2,30,000
A)Loss of consortium (40,000 x 5)= Rs.2,00,000
B) Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000
C) Funeral Expenses= Rs.15,000
6 Total Compensation to be paid 12,38,000
7 Less - Compensation awarded by Tribunal 8,05,000
Total enhanced amount of compensation 4,33,000
SUMMATION
22. To sum up, as discussed above, there is no need to interfere in
{23} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
the appeals filed by the appellant Insurance Company, therefore, the
same deserve to be rejected. However, in view of above discussion,
the original claimants in both the appeals are entitled for the
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made above.
Accordingly, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. Both First Appeals filed by appellant Insurance
Company stand dismissed.
II. Impugned judgment and award dated 15-01-2011
passed by the Ex-Officiao Member, MACT, Parbhani
in MACP Nos.277 of 2006 and 280 of 2006 stands
modified.
III. The original claimants in MACP No.277 of 2006 are
entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,33,000/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization of the amount.
IV. The original claimants in MACP No.280 of 2006
are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.16,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization of
the amount.
V. Original Respondent no.2/Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.4,33,000/- to
original claimants in MACP No.277 of 2006 and to
pay enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.16,65,000/- to original claimants in MACP
No.280 of 2006 within 12 weeks from today along
{24} FA 1054 OF 2012 +
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
registration of claim petitions till its realization.
VI. The enhanced amount of compensation be
distributed/paid to the original claimants as per
apportionment indicated by the learned Tribunal in
its Judgment and award dated 15-01-2011.
VII. Rest of the award of the learned Tribunal is
maintained.
VIII. Appellant Insurance Company to deposit the amount
of enhanced compensation along with interest
thereon in this Court.
IX. On deposit of amount by the Insurance Company,
original claimants are permitted to withdraw the
enhanced compensation amount as well as amount
lying in this Court, if any, along with interest accrued
thereon, if any.
X. Modified award be prepared accordingly.
XI Claimants to pay Court fees on enhanced
compensation as per Rules.
XII. The Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
XIII. Pending Civil Applications are also disposed of.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
