[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Archana Vijaykumar Rawate And Ors vs Brijesh Shriram Ahirwar And Ors on 29 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19864
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2019
1. Archana W/o Vijaykumar Rawate
Aged 26 years, Occu.: H.H.Student,
2. Atharva S/o Vijaukumar Rawate
Aged 4 years, Occu.: Nil,
3. Ganesh S/o Vijaykumar Rawate,
Age: 3 years, Occu.: Nil,
(Appellants No.2 and 3 are the minors,
they are U/g. Of their mother-in-law
Archana W/o Vijaykumar Rawate
i.e. Appellant No.1)
4. Shankar S/o. Maroti Rawate,
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service
5. Shobha W/o. Shankar Rawate,
Age: 54 years Occu.: H.H.
All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur .... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. Brijesh S/o. Shriram Ahirwar,
Age : Major, Occu. : Driver,
R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,
Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni
(Madhya Pradesh)
2. Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,
Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni
(Madhya Pradesh)
1 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
2
(Owner of Truck bearing No.
MP-22/H-0220)
3. The Branch Manager,
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Behind Latur General Store, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
4. Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,
Age: Major, Occu. Agri. & Business,
R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur
(Owner of Jeep bearing
Reg. No.MH-24/V-7639)
5. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2160 OF 2019
1. Namdeo S/o Maruti Shelke
Aged 54 years, Occu.: Agri,
2. Sow. Usha W/o. Mandeo Shelke,
Age: 48 years, Occu.: H.H.
3. Shahubai D/o Namdeo Shelke,
Age: 18 years, Occu.: Education,
All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
.... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
2 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
3
Versus
1. Brijesh S/o. Shriram Ahirwar,
Age : Major, Occu. : Driver,
R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,
Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni
(Madhya Pradesh)
2. Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,
Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni
(Madhya Pradesh)
(Owner of Truck bearing No.
MP-22/H-0220)
3. The Branch Manager,
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Behind Latur General Store, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
4. Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,
Age: Major, Occu. Agri. & Business,
R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur
(Owner of Jeep bearing
Reg. No.MH-24/V-7639)
5. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. ... Respondents.
3 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
4
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2161 OF 2019
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited,
Through Brnach Manager,
1st Floor, Inani Bilding,
Above Latur Sadi Centre,
old Cloth Lane, Latur
Through : The Branch Manager,
A4, Suyash complex, Baba Nagar,
Kalda Complex, Aurangabad-431 005. ... Appellants
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
Versus
1. Namdeo Maruti Shelke
AgeL 53 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
2. Usha W/o. Namdeo Shelke,
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Household
3. Shahubai D/o. Namdeo Shelke,
Age: 19 years, Occu.: Education,
All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4. Brijesh Shriram Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,
R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,
Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,
(Madhya Pradesh)
5. Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,
Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,
(Madhya Pradesh)
4 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
5
6. Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,
Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture & Business,
R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur.
7. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate,
Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
(Resp. Nos.1 to 3 Orig
Claimants, Resp Nos.4 & 5
Orig. Resp. Nos.1& 2 Resp.
Nos. 6 to 8 Orig. Resp No.4
to 6)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2162 OF 2019
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited,
Through Brnach Manager,
1st Floor, Inani Bilding,
Above Latur Sadi Centre,
old Cloth Lane, Latur
Through : The Branch Manager,
A4, Suyash complex, Baba Nagar,
Kalda Complex, Aurangabad-431 005. ... Appellants
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
Versus
1. Archana W/o Vijaykumar Rawate
Aged 26 years, Occu.: Household
5 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
6
2. Atharva S/o Vijaukumar Rawate
Aged 5 years, Occu.: Education,
3. Ganesh S/o Vijaykumar Rawate,
Age: 4 years, Occu.: Nil,
(Respondent No.2 & 3 being minor
under guardianship of their mother
i.e. Respondent No.1)
4. Shankar S/o. Maroti Rawate,
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Service
5. Shobha W/o. Shankar Rawate,
Age: 55 years Occu.: Household
6. Brijesh Shriram Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,
R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,
Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,
(Madhya Pradesh)
7. Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,
Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,
(Madhya Pradesh)
8. Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,
Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture & Business,
R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur.
9. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
7
10. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. ... Respondents.
(Resp. Nos.1 to 5 Orig
Claimants, Resp Nos.6 & 7
Orig. Resp. Nos.1 and 2 Resp
Nos. 8 to 10 Orig. Resp No.4
to 6)
......
Mr. N.D. Kendre, Advocate for Appellants in FA/2159/2019 and
FA/2160/2019 and for Respondents No.1 to 3 in FA/2161/2019
and for Respondents No.1 to 5 in FA/2162/2019
Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in
FA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and for Appellant in
FA/2161/2019 and FA/2162/2019
Mr. Abhijit G. Choudhari, Advocate for Respondents No.5 and 6 in
FA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and for Respondent No.7 in
FA/2161/2019 and for Respondent No.9 in FA/2162/2019
Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for
Respondent No.4 in FA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and for
Respondent No.6 in FA/2161/2019 and for Respondent No.8 in
FA/2162/2019.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 09 JULY, 2025
Pronounced on : 29 JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
–
1. In all four First Appeals are offshoots of one and the same
accident, but are arising out of distinct claim petitions bearing
Nos.247 of 2015 and 248 of 2015, which are at the instance of
7 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
8
original claimants, who are heirs of deceased, who died in road
traffic accident. In nutshell, two First Appeals bearing no. 2159 of
2019 and 2160 of 20119 (at the instance of claimants; whereas
two First Appeal Nos. 2161 of 2019 and 2162 of 2019 ( at the
instance of Insurance Company) are hereby taking exception to
two different judgments and awards passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Latur on account of one accident between truck
and jeep dated 24.07.2015. Hence, these four appeals are being
disposed of by common judgment.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEAL NO.2159/2019 (M.A.C.P.
NO.247/2015) ARE AS UNDER:
2. The accident claim petition bearing No. 247 of 2015 has
been filed by the wife and sons of the deceased Vijaykumar, along
with his parents. The claim is directed against the driver and
owner of the offending truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220, their
insurer (respondent No. 3), as well as the owner of the jeep
bearing No. MH-24/V-7638 and its insurer (respondents No. 5 and
6).
8 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
9
3. The case set up by the claimants is that, on 24.07.2015,
deceased Vijaykumar was travelling in the above-referred jeep to
go to his destination at Chakur. When the jeep was in the vicinity
of village Algarwadi, Tq. Chakur, a truck bearing No. MP-22/H-
0220, which is allegedly coming from the opposite direction at an
excessively high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, came onto the wrong side and collided with the jeep,
causing the accident. As a result, Vijaykumar died on the spot, and
the other occupants sustained injuries.
4. According to claimants, the driver of the truck was solely
responsible for the accident. The said truck being owned by
respondent No.2 and being insured by respondent No.3, it is a case
of claimants that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
5. Except for respondent No. 2, all the respondents appeared
in the claim petition. However, respondents No. 1 and 4 did not
file their written statements. Hence, the claim petition proceeded
without their written statements.
9 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
10
6. According to the claimants, at the time of the accident, the
deceased Vijaykumar was 28 years old. He was employed as a
driver by one Syed Maheboob Yasinsab and was earning a salary of
Rs. 12,000/- per month. That, he was the sole bread earner and
the only source of income for the claimants’ family. Under various
heads, the claimants set up the claim by invoking Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, to the tune of Rs.42,41,000/-, which,
according to them, should be paid jointly and severally by
respondents No. 1 to 3.
7. The main contenting respondent seems to be respondent
No.3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and it is the case
at their end firstly on the ground that the truck driver was not
holding valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there is
breach of policy; and secondly, the truck driver was not solely
negligent. They also contested and objected to the age and income
of deceased Vijaykumar for want of proof. In the alternative, the
plea set up by the insurance company is that, if the case of
claimants is accepted, then composite negligence can be attributed
to drivers of both vehicles i.e. truck driver as well as jeep driver, on
account of the accident to be as a result of head-on collision.
10 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
11
Respondents No. 5 and 6 also contested the claim on the
ground that there was no negligence on the part of the jeep driver,
and according to them, the truck driver was solely responsible for
the accident.
8. In light of the above controversies raised by each of the
parties, the Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating both
oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the
claimants proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the truck driver and no case is made out to
hold driver of the jeep to be also equally responsible to bring into
play contributory negligence. The Tribunal held that the claimants
are entitled for compensation, that too only from the driver and
owner of the truck and insurer of the truck. Accordingly,
compensation of Rs. 12,94,000 was awarded along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum.
9. Now, by the present appeal, i.e. First Appeal No.2159 of
2019, the claimants have taken exception to the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of insufficient
compensation, and have accordingly sought enhancement of the
compensation.
11 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
12
10. Whereas, the insurance company has also challenged the
award on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in holding the truck
driver solely responsible by absolving the driver of the jeep and not
accepting the case set up by them in the Tribunal.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEAL NO.2160/2019 (M.A.C.P.
NO.247/2015) ARE AS UNDER:
11 The accident claim petition bearing No. 248 of 2015 has
been filed by the parents and sister of the deceased Dhondiram.
The claim is directed against the driver and owner of the offending
truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220, their insurer (respondent No. 3),
as well as the owner of the jeep bearing No. MH-24/V-7638 and its
insurer (respondents No. 5 and 6).
12. The case set up by the claimants is that, deceased
Dondiram was an occupant of jeep and travelling towards Chakur
on 24.07.2015, having died in a road traffic accident on account of
dash given by the truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220. They st up the
claim by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,53,000/- with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum. According to claimants, the truck came
from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and after
12 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
13
coming from the wrong side, gave a dash to the jeep in which
Dhondiram died on the spot. Therefore, they sought compensation
not only from the driver and owner of the truck and the insurer of
the truck, but also from the owner of the jeep and its insurer.
13. According to the claimants, the deceased Dhondiram was
18 years old and working as a cleaner on the vehicle of Sayyed
Maheboob Yasinsab and was earning Rs.8,000 per month. The
claimants were solely dependent on his income, and hence, the
claim was filed.
14. The Tribunal issued notices to all the respondents. Though
Respondent No. 1 was duly served, he failed to appear. Hence, the
claim petition proceeded ex parte against him. However,
respondents No.2 and 4, though caused appearance, failed to file
written statement, and therefore, the Tribunal passed an order to
proceed with the claim without their written statements.
15. The main contenting respondent seems to be respondent
No.3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and again it is
the case at their end, firstly on the ground that the truck driver
was not holding valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there
is breach of policy; and secondly, the truck driver was not solely
13 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
14
negligent. They also contested and objected to the age and income
of deceased Dhondiram for want of proof. In the alternative, the
plea set up by the insurance company is that, if the case of
claimants is accepted, then composite negligence can be attributed
to drivers of both vehicles i.e. truck driver as well as jeep driver, on
account of the accident to be as a result of head-on collision.
16. In view of the above controversies raised by the parties, the
Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating both oral and
documentary evidence, reached the finding that the claimants
proved that the deceased, Dhondiram, was an occupant of the
jeep, which was collided with due to the rash and negligent driving
of the truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220. The Tribunal also rejected
the claim of the insurance company as well as Respondents No. 3,
5, and 6 regarding breach of condition and absolving the driver of
the jeep from negligence, and finally granted compensation of Rs.
4,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to be
paid jointly and severally by Respondents No. 1 and 2.
17. Now, by the present appeal, i.e., First Appeal No. 2160 of
2019, the claimants have taken exception to the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of insufficient
14 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
15
compensation and have accordingly sought enhancement thereof.
Whereas, the insurance company has also challenged the award on
the grounds that the Tribunal erred in holding the truck driver
solely responsible by absolving the driver of the jeep and not
accepting the case set up by them in the Tribunal.
18. Heard. Perused the record and impugned judgments &
awards dated 30.11.2017 in M.A.C.P. Nos.247/2015 and 248/2015
respectively.
19. After re-appreciating the FIR, spot panchanama, inquest
panchanama, and other evidence, this Court has no doubt that the
truck driver left his correct side and moved onto the wrong side,
where the jeep was proceeding, and thereby collided with the jeep,
causing the death of the deceased Vijaykumar and Dhondiram.
On going through the judgment of the Tribunal, this Court is more
than convinced about the reasons assigned for holding truck driver
solely responsible and absolving driver of jeep from negligence.
Though the insurance company in both cases has pleaded breach
of policy, it has failed to discharge this burden by adducing any
distinct evidence to that effect. Therefore, the only question that
arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal, in the above cases,
15 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
16
has granted appropriate and just compensation, or whether the
same is inadequate so as to enhance the same.
20. Though the insurance company has asserted that there was
contributory negligence on the part of both drivers and fault is
found in the judgment of the Tribunal for failing to consider the
same, this Court finds no merit in the same, because as stated
above, from the spot panchanama (Exhibit-48), when both vehicles
were approaching each other and proceeding towards the opposite
direction, each vehicle is expected to maintain lane discipline.
However, the spot panchanama shows that the truck left its correct
side and entered the zone of the road meant for vehicles
proceeding in the opposite direction. Therefore, considering the
same, this Court too is convinced that reasons assigned by the
Tribunal in paragraphs No.19 to 23, fixing responsibility only on
the truck driver cannot be faulted at. Similarly, though the plea
was taken about breach of policy before the Tribunal, the
insurance company has not led distinct evidence about breach of
policy. On the contrary, the offending truck had valid and effective
policy on the date of accident.
16 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
17
21. On complete re-appreciation of the analysis of the
evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court that, though
claimants in First Appeal No.2159 of 2019 (M.A.C.P. No.247/2015)
has set up a case that deceased Vijaykumar was the employed as
driver on the truck owned by Mr. Sayyed Yasinsab. Though efforts
have been taken to examine him, on going through his evidence, it
is emerging that deceased Vijaukumar was not in permanent
employment as a driver and no evidence is lead to believe it.
22. As regards to computation of compensation in M.A.C.P.
No.247/2015 is concerned, claimants have adduced evidence of
Sayyed Yasinsab to show employment of Vijaykumar. In his
testimony, Mr. Sayyed Yasinsab deposed that he had obtained the
signatures of the deceased, Vijaykumar, in his diary. However, he
has failed to produce the diary itself. Therefore, there is no distinct
evidence regarding salary being paid to deceased Vijaykumar for
working as a driver. Even the papers of the truck, which was
allegedly driven by the deceased Vijaykumar, are not placed on
record. Therefore, there is no evidence that deceased Vijaykumar
was in employment of this witness as driver. Therefore, the only
course left open to the Tribunal was to consider the notional
income.
17 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
18
23. However, considering that the deceased Vijaykumar was a
skilled driver, the Tribunal assessed his monthly salary at
Rs.8,000/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have been
assessed at a minimum of Rs.10,000/-. As pointed out, the learned
Tribunal does not appear to have awarded any amount under the
head of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the claimants, who are
entitled to the same in their respective individual capacities as the
wife, sons, and parents of the deceased. All the claimants are
equally entitled to loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal has
awarded the same only to claimant No. 1. Therefore, modification
in the award to that extent is also required to be made. Similarly,
the Tribunal seems to have forgotten to award distinct
compensation under the head of ‘loss of future prospects’.
24. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680,
claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 2,00,000/- plus
20% (Rs.40,000/-) which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- towards
consortium. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.
Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was
29 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus in
18 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
19
view of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants if First Appeal
No.2159/2019 (M.A.C.P. No.247/2015) are entitled for following
compensation.
Name of the deceased : Vijaukumar Rawate
[(First Appeal No.2159/2019) (M.A.C.P. No. 247/2015)]
Head Compensation Amount
1. Annual Income Rs.1,20,000/-
(i.e. Rs.10,000 X 12)
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs.1,68,000
i.e. 48,000 (1,20,000 + 48000)
3. less 1/4 deduction towards Rs.1,26,000/-
personal expenses.
(Rs. 1,68,000 – 42,000)
4. Multiplier of 17 (1,26,000 X 17) Rs.21,42,000/-
(As applied by the Tribunal)
5. Non-pecuniary Losses:- Rs.2,70,000/-
Loss consortium and
Love and affection = Rs.2,40,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
6. Total compensation to be paid Rs.24,12,000/-
(i.e. Rs.21,42,000 + Rs.2,70,000 )
6. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.12,94,000/-
7. Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.11,18,000/-
(Rs.24,12,000 – Rs.12,94,000 )
19 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
20
26. As regards to computation of compensation in M.A.C.P.
No.248/2015 is concerned, the deceased Dhondiram was shown to
have been working as a cleaner on the truck owned by Mr. Sayyed
Yasinsab. Though deceased Dhondiram claimed to be working as
cleaner, in this regard also there is no evidence whatsoever to show
that he rendered in such work. Therefore, in the absence of any
such evidence, the notional income, as assessed by the Tribunal, is
required to be considered. However, the multiplier applied by the
Tribunal is 13, which was based on the average age of the parents.
In fact, considering the age of the deceased Dhondiram as 18
years, the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 18, in
accordance with the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC
3104. So also, as pointed out, in this claim also the learned
Tribunal does not appear to have awarded any amount under the
head of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the claimants. Therefore,
modification in the award to that extent is also required to be
made. Similarly, the Tribunal seems to have forgotten to award
distinct compensation under the head of ‘loss of future prospects’.
20 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
21
27. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680,
claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 1,20,000/- plus
20% (Rs.24,000/-) which comes to Rs. 1,44,000/- towards
consortium. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.
Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was
18 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus in
view of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants if First Appeal
No.2160/2019 (M.A.C.P. No.248/2015) are entitled for following
compensation.
Name of the deceased : Dhondiram Shelke
(M.A.C.P. No. 248/2015)
Head Compensation Amount
1. Annual Income Rs.72,000/-
(i.e. Rs.6000 X 12)
(As assessed by the Tribunal)
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs.1,00,800
i.e. 28,800 (72,000 + 28,800)
3. less 1/2 deduction towards Rs.50,400/-
personal expenses.
(Rs. 1,00,800 - 50,400)
4. Multiplier of 18 (50,400 X 18) Rs.9,07,200/-
21 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
22
5. Non-pecuniary Losses:- Rs.1,74,000/-
Loss consortium = Rs.1,44,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
6. Total compensation to be paid Rs.10,81,200/-
(i.e. Rs.9,07,200 + Rs.1,74,000 )
6. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.4,98,000/-
7. Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.5,83,200/-
(Rs.10,81,200 – Rs.4,98,000 )
29. In the result, First Appeal Nos. 2159 of 2019 and 2160 of
2019 preferred by the original claimants are partly allowed as
under :-
Order in First Appeal No. 2159 of 2019
(I) Impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2017, passed
by Ex-Officio Member of M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No.247 of
2015 is modified as under:
(a) Respondent no.3-insurance company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.11,18,000/- to
claimants within 12 weeks from today along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
registration of claim petition till its realization.
22 of 23
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)
23
Order in First Appeal No. 2160 of 2019
(II) Impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2017, passed
by Ex-Officio Member of M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 248 of
2015 is modified as under:
(a) Respondent no.3-insurance company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,83,200/- to claimants
within 12 weeks from today along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of registration of claim
petition till its realization.
(III) First appeal Nos. 2161 of 2019 and 2162 of 2019 preferred
by the Insurance company stand dismissed.
(IV) No order as to costs.
(V) Award be drawn up accordingly.
(VI) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellants/claimants in FA/2159/2019 and 2160/2019 are
permitted to withdraw the same.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ]
JUDGE
S.P. Rane
23 of 23
[ad_2]
Source link