Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 325 (BOM)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukhmabai

2020-02-12

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against the Judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kelapur, District Yavatmal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under : On 13.5.2008, at about 5.30 p.m. at Khandala Fata on Shirpur-Korpana road, accident took place. Deceased was going from Chargaon chowki to Velabai (Mohada) on his motorbike No.MH-29J/1961. When he reached near Khandala Fata, the offending Trailer truck No.MH-20/AT-6597 driven by the driver/respondent no.4 herein rashly and negligently, gave dash to the motorbike of deceased. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Offence was registered against the driver of the offending truck by Police Station, Shirpur. The said truck was owned by respondent no.5 herein. Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 in the present appeal filed Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kelapur, District Yavatmal. The appellant appeared and filed Written Statement and contested the Claim. The Claim Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.24,52,968/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of Claim Petition till realisation of whole amount. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. 3. Heard Mr.B.P.Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that there is only dispute in respect of multiplier applied by the Tribunal and 30% future prospects added to the income of the deceased. 4. Mr.Bhatt, learned Counsel has pointed out para no.21 of the impugned Judgment and submitted that the deceased was aged about 50 years, 11 months and 21 days and therefore, the multiplier ought to have been 11. Learned Counsel has submitted that 30% future prospects is wrongly applied by the Tribunal to the income of the deceased and therefore, the learned Counsel prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Mr.Vivek Awchat, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation by applying multiplier 11 and 30% future prospects. There is no any mistake in the calculation. Hence, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. None appears for respondent nos. 4 and 5. 6. In para no.21 of the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal, it is observed as under : “The age of the deceased is claimed to be 50 years, 10 months and 21 days. The accident occurred on 13-05-2008. The service record shows the date of birth as 22-06-1957 as per his school leaving certificate. 4 and 5. 6. In para no.21 of the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal, it is observed as under : “The age of the deceased is claimed to be 50 years, 10 months and 21 days. The accident occurred on 13-05-2008. The service record shows the date of birth as 22-06-1957 as per his school leaving certificate. Therefore, his age on date of accident 50 years, 11 months 21 days, which is below 51 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable would be 12 in this case as the age is neither complete 51 nor below 50. Therefore, the just multiplier would be 12. Therefore, the loss on account of dependency comes to Rs.15,93,979.20/- which is rounded to Rs.15,93,979/-.” 7. There is no dispute about age of the deceased as per findings of the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 50 years, 11 months, 21 days at the time of incident. The deceased had not completed 51 years of his age and therefore, as per the table provided in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , the multiplier to be used for the age group 46 to 50 is 13. Para 21 of the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is re-produced below : “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M- 11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years”. 8. Mr.Bhatt, learned Counsel has pointed out Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 . 8. Mr.Bhatt, learned Counsel has pointed out Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 . In para 61 (iii), Hon’ble Apex Court has given guidelines as under: “61 (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.” 9. As per submission of learned Counsel Mr.Bhatt, the deceased was more than 50 years. As per the findings of Tribunal, he was aged about 50 years, 11 months and 21 days and therefore, multiplier 15 is applicable as per the Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra). 10. As stated above, there is no dispute about the age of deceased at the time of incident. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned Judgment in para 21 has held that the deceased was aged about 50 years, 11 months, 21 days. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied addition of 15 % in the income of deceased. Therefore, the impugned Judgment is to be corrected. As under : (a) Net salary of deceased = Rs.16604.80. (b) After deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of deceased = Rs.16604.80 – Rs.5534.66 = Rs.11069.34. (c) Yearly incomes comes to Rs.11069.34 x 12 = Rs.1,32,831.60. (d) Rs.1,32,831.60 + 15 % towards future prospects = Rs.152756.34. (e) Rs.152756.34 x 13 (multiplier) = 1985832.42 + 70,000 (as per Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi) = Total amount 2055832.40. 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment in respect of quantum of compensation is quashed and set aside. The operative order of the impugned Judgment is modified as under : (i) Appellant and respondent nos. 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment in respect of quantum of compensation is quashed and set aside. The operative order of the impugned Judgment is modified as under : (i) Appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.20,54,832.42 along with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of Claim Petition i.e. from 24.4.2019 till realisation of the whole amount of compensation including amount of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) The amount of compensation along with interest shall be given to respondent nos. 1 to 3 (claimants) in equal shares (iii) If excess amount of compensation is deposited, the same shall be refunded to the appellant after calculation. (iv) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 (claimants) are permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation of Rs.20,54,832.42 along with accrued interest 7.5. (v) The appellant and respondent nos. 1 to 3 shall submit their calculations before the Registrar (Judicial).