Bombay High Court
Sindhubai Balbhim Rasane And Anr vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its … on 21 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:11428
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3594 OF 2019
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Authorized Signatory / Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.I, H. No.4/5/76, V. P. Chowk,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad - 431 001 ....Appellant
[Original Respondent No.4]
VERSUS
1. Balbhim S/o Nivrutti Rasane
Age: 51 Years, Occupation : Nil
2. Sindhubai W/o Balbhim Rasane
Age : 49 Years, Occu. Nil
3. Shrikrushna Balbhim Rasane
Age : 22 Years, Occu. Education
All R/o. Ghotan, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
4. Rameshwar Dadasaheb Shelke
Age : 35 Years, Occu. Driver
R/o. Kare Takali, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Dvarka Kakasaheb Mogal
Age : Major, Occu. Owner,
R/o. Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
6. Kakasaheb Janardhan Mogal [Dead]
.....Respondents
[Resp. Nos.1 to 3 - Orig. Claimants &
[Resp. No.4 to 6-Org. Resp. No.1 to 3]
.....
Appearance :
Mr. S. R. Bodade, Advocate for the Appellant - Insurance Company
Mr. R. B. Dhakane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr. M. B. Ubale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
.....
1
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.884 OF 2023
1. Shri. Balbhim Nivrutti Rasane
Age - 53 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Ghotan, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
[As per Hon'ble Courts order dated 30.1.2023,
the name is deleted on 7.2.2023 at 2:45 pm]
2. Sou. Sindhubai Balbhim Rasane
Age - 48, occup - Nil ,
R/o Ghotan, Taq - Shevgaon,
Dist - Ahmednagar.
3. Shrikrishna Balbhim Rasane
Age - 21 years, occup - Education,
R/o Ghotan, Taq - Shevgaon,
Dist - Ahmednagar. .... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
VERSUS
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad
2. Rameshwar Dadasaheb Shelke
Age - 34 years, Occup - Driver,
R/o Karhe Takali, Taq Shevgaon,
Dist - Ahmednagar
3. Smt. Dwarka Kakasaheb Mogal
Age - Major, Occup - Owner,
R/o Nilajgaon, Taq - Paithan,
Dist. - Aurangabad
4. Shri. Kakasaheb Janardhan Mogal [died]
[Through Legal heir, i.e. respon. No.3] .....Respondents
[Orig. Respondents]
.....
Appearance : -
Mr. R. B. Dhakane, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. S. R. Bodade, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M. B. Ubale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
.....
2
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : 02/04/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21/04/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT :
–
1. Both the Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act‘]. The
First Appeal No.3594/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company
against the Judgment and Order / Award dated 20/03/2019, passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad,
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’] in Motor
Accident Claim Petition [For short ‘MACP’] No.406/2018, partly
allowing the MACP and directing the Insurance Company, Owner
and Driver to pay the compensation of Rs.8,86,800/- [Rupees Eight
Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Eight Hundred Only], jointly and
severally to the Claimants with interest @ 9% from the date of filing
of the Claim Petition till its realization. The First Appeal
No.884/2023 is filed by the Claimants for enhance compensation.
Common submissions are advanced by both the sides. Hence, both
the Appeals are decided by this Common Judgment. The parties
are referred as per their nomenclature / position in the MACP.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under :-
[I] The Claimants filed the above referred MACP before the
learned Tribunal with the contention that, they were the father,3
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odtmother and brother, respectively of Govind Balbhim Rasane
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’]. They were resident of
Village Ghotan, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. The
Deceased was working as JCB Operator on the JCB Machine of one
Tukaram Namdeo Thorve and getting monthly salary of
Rs.10,000/- per month. On 12/05/2018, when the Deceased and his
friend were returning to the Village on a motorcycle from Paithan
to Shevgaon road in moderate speed from the correct side of the
road and reached near Open Prison, Paithan around 04:30 p.m., a
Tractor bearing No. MH-20-CR-4863, which was coming from the
opposite direction in a high speed and in rash and negligent
manner, gave dash to the motorcycle, on which, the Deceased and
his friend were travelling. Due to the said motor vehicular
Accident, the Deceased and his friend succumbed to the injuries.
The Accident was reported to the Paithan Police Station and Crime
No.165/2018 came to be registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860[hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C‘] and Section 134 /177 of the
M.V. Act against the Driver of said Tractor.
[II] The Claimants being the Dependents/Legal
Representatives of the Deceased claimed the compensation of
Rs.23,30,000/- [Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand
Only] against the Insurance Company, the Owner and the Driver of
the said Tractor. The MACP was resisted / contested by the
Insurance Company by filing Written Statement at Exhibit-17 and
by the Owner and Driver of the said Tractor by filing joint Written
Statement at Exhibit-24. They denied the case of Claimants put-
forth before the learned Tribunal. They denied the involvement of
the said Tractor in the Accident on the ground that, the Crime was
registered against the unknown vehicle. They denied the rash and4
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odtnegligent driving of the said Tractor. They denied the income of
Deceased and prayed to dismiss the MACP.
[III] The learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exhibit-15.
In support of the MACP, the Brother of Deceased examined himself
by filing Evidence Affidavit at Exhibit – 20. He was cross-examined
by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company and the
learned Advocate for the Owner and Driver of the said Tractor. The
Claimants brought on record the Police Papers, the copies of
Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate of the Tractor
and the copy of Driving Licence of the Tractor Driver. The
Claimants examined the JCB Owner as Witness No.2 at Exhibit – 40
to show the monthly income of the Deceased, who was cross-
examined by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company.
The learned Tribunal decided the MACP by the impugned
Judgment and Award.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, the
learned Advocate for the Claimants and the learned Advocate for
the Owner and Driver of the said Tractor. Perused the evidence
available on record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company that, the Brother of Deceased was not the eyewitness to
the Accident and the Claimants did not examine the eyewitness to
the Accident. The involvement of the said Tractor, which was
insured with the Insurance Company, was in dispute. The Report
was lodged against the unknown vehicle. It was a hit and run case.
5
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
Though the Claimants examined the witness to show the monthly
income of the Deceased, there was no documentary evidence, such
as Vouchers, Account Books and Appointment Order, to prove that,
the Deceased was the JCB Operator and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. There was no Driving Licence of the Deceased. In such
circumstances, the Notional Income of Rs.3,000/- per month should
have been considered. The witnesses, whose statements were
recorded by the Police, were the interested witnesses. The interest
awarded by the learned Tribunal was on higher side. The defence
of the Insurance Company was curtailed by not allowing the
examination of the Investigating Officer. Hence, the Appeal filed by
the Insurance Company be allowed and the Appeal filed by the
Claimants be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he relied on
the Judgments, which are considered in the later part of this
Judgment.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that, the Insurance Company failed to prove that, the Accident was
the result of contributory negligence. Only averments are not
sufficient and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. The
Claimants have established their case by examining the witness.
The Accident was between [2] two vehicles and the Deceased was a
third party and so, non wearing of helmet and no Licence with the
Deceased cannot be the issues. The employer of Deceased was
6
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
examined to prove the income. The Consortium is not granted to
the Claimants. The leaned Tribunal ought to have accepted the
monthly income of the Deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The
deduction granted by the learned Tribunal be recalculated as 1/3 rd,
as the Claimants are three [3] in number. The Appeal filed by the
Claimants for enhancement of compensation be allowed and the
Appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed. In support of
his contentions, he relied on the Judgments and Notification in
respect of rates of wages payable certain categories of employees,
which are considered in the later part of this Judgment.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Owner and
Driver of the said Tractor that, the said Tractor was validly insured
with the Insurance Company and the same is clear from the
observations made in the impugned Judgment and Award.
7. Before adverting to the facts, circumstances and the evidence
in the case at hand, the Judgments cited by both the sides are
considered.
[I] Judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company
[a] SIBY Paul Vs. Praveen Kumar ; LAWS [KER] – 2008-9-56
dated September 03, 2008, wherein, the provision of Section 129 of
the M.V. Act regarding wearing of protective head gear by those
7
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
riding two wheeler is considered. It is observed that, it was for the
learned Tribunal to consider whether in a case of Claim of
compensation for death or injury of Drivers or Pillion Riders of two
wheelers they were wearing helmet at the time of Accident and if
not whether wearing of helmet would have prevented the death or
injury or reduced the impact of the injury and if the same should be
reckoned as an aspect of contributory negligence for reducing the
compensation amount. Any claim made by Riders about wearing of
helmet at the time of Accident should be critically examined and if
found bogus, the same should be rejected. It is further observed
that, in fact the want of helmet for the Rider may not be
contributory to the Accident. However, the use of helmet would
prevent Head Injury or at least reduce the impact of the injury in
the event of Accident for the Driver and Pillion Rider of the bike or
two wheeler.
[b] Meera Sidharth Kambli Vs. Viraj Ekawade ; LAWS [BOM]-
2015-4-59 dated April 18, 2015, wherein, the negligence of Driver
of the vehicle involved in the Accident was not proved and, the
decision of the learned Tribunal holding that, the Claimant was not
entitled to receive any compensation, was upheld.
[c] Pukh Raj Bumb Vs. Jagannath Atchut Naik ; LAWS [BOM]-
2013-7-46, wherein, the Claimant had miserably failed to prove
that, the Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
8
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
car involved in the Accident and it was held that, the Claimant was
not entitled to receive any compensation on the ground of injuries
resulting in permanent disability. It is also observed that, strict
proof of the Accident was not required to be given by the Claimant
and the Claimant can prove the case by preponderance of
probability.
[d] New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Suryakant
Patil and Others, in First Appeal No.2829/2015 [Unreported],
wherein, the principles applicable to the cases for compensation
under the M.V. Act came to be reiterated as ; [i] Only on account of
technicalities the Claim Petition cannot be defeated. [ii] Strict proof
of the Accident by particular vehicle in a particular manner is not
required. [iii] Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied. [iv] Evidence is to be appreciated by applying the principle
of preponderance of probability. [v] Absence of name of Driver and
number of motor vehicle involved in the Accident, is not fatal in
every case. [vi] Statement of witness recorded under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be read, and therefore,
no relevance or reference can be attributed to it to accelerate the
claim canvassed. On the facts of the case, it was held that, the
involvement of offending vehicle in the Accident was not
established.
9
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
[e] Shabbeer Khan Vs. Gaurav Sharma and Another; 2015 [4]
T.A.C. 439 [Raj.], wherein, by considering the delay in lodging the
FIR, it was found that, the explanation for delay given by the
Claimant was not acceptable, admission of offence by the Owner of
car was not held to be of any assistance to the Claimant and it was
held that, the finding of Criminal Court was not binding upon the
learned Tribunal and the Claimant therein failed to prove that the
Accident occurred with a particular offending vehicle.
[f] Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Aurangabad Vs.
Meera W/o Raju Choudhary and Others ; 2014 [6] Mh.L.J., wherein,
the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed, as the
Claimants therein failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle
insured with the Appellant, in the Accident.
[g] Faridabegum S/o Shaikh Yousuf Vs. Daulat Khan S/o Sardar
Kjan [died] through L.Rs. ; 2014 [6] Mh.L.J., wherein, it was
observed that, the involvement of the Truck in the Accident was
not proved.
[h] Anil and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and
others; 2018 [5] Mh.L.J, wherein, it is observed that, the learned
Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which had
bearing on the question as to whether the death of Deceased
therein was caused as a result of the Accident caused by the
10
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
Tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court
were germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set
up to support a Claim for compensation and the Appellants were
not able to displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the High
Court and the findings, which were arrived at.
[i] Noorjadi Khatoon and Another Vs. Pintu Yadav and Others ;
2015 [3] T.A.C 496 [Del.], wherein, it was held that, the amount
paid by the employer under any group personal Accident policy
towards Accidental death was liable to be deducted from the
amount of compensation.
[j] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, in
Civil Appeal No.5825/2006 decided on 02/04/2007, wherein, the
Regional Manager of the Company, which was the Owner of vehicle,
was himself driving the vehicle of the Company and during the
course of it, he died in an Accident and the point for consideration
was whether the Accident took place due to his negligence or
otherwise. It is observed that, although being the beneficent peace
of legislature, the learned Tribunal may follow summary
procedure, but should not ignore basic principles of law. In the said
case, the Claimants failed to implead the Driver of vehicle and
failed to file documentary evidence regarding pay of Deceased. The
Appeal was allowed and the Appellant was exonerated from the
liability to pay the compensation.
11
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
[II] Judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
[a] Sunita and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Anr. ; AIR 2019 Supreme Court 994, wherein, it is
observed that, while dealing with the Claim Petition under the M.V.
Act, the learned Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the
pleadings of the parties. The standard of proof to be borne in mind
must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubts, which is followed in criminal
cases.
[b] Sh. Fakir Chand Taneja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited ;
LAWS [SC]-2022-9-221, wherein, the salary of Deceased was
considered by the learned Tribunal without deduction of income
tax. In the said case, the learned Tribunal had taken into
consideration only the basic salary and ignored all the Allowances,
such as, Conveyance Allowance, House Rent Allowance, etc. It was
observed that, the deductions made by the learned Tribunal were
not at all justified except the deduction of driver assistance. The
monthly income of the Deceased therein was considered after
deducting the income tax and the amount payable as driver
assistance.
[c] Geeta Dubey Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ;
AIR 2025 Supreme Court 386, wherein, it is observed that, when
the Accident or involvement of vehicle is disputed, the Claimant is
12
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
only expected to prove the same on preponderance of probability
and not beyond reasonable doubt.
[d] Mahalakshmi Vs. Krishnaraj ; LAWS [MAD]-2024-4-161,
wherein, the matter was under the Employee’s Compensation Act,
1923 in respect of Accidental death of the employee during the
course of employment and wherein, it was observed that, in the
absence of proof of actual monthly wages, the Labour
Commissioner had no other alternative than adopting the monthly
wages notified by the Central Government as per Section 4-1 [B] of
the said Act of 1923 and the question of law was answered that, the
adoption of minimum wages prescribed by the State Government
could not be taken into account for awarding compensation under
the Act of 1923 and the monthly wages notified by the Central
Government as per Section 4-1 [B] shall be adopted for awarding
compensation.
[e] Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company ; AIR 2014 SC 1052, wherein, there was no
written record of the income of the Claimant and therefore, the
income as per Revised Minimum Wages Rule, 2012 – 2013, @
Rs.4,246/- per month was considered.
[f] The Notification dated 19/01/2017, wherein, the minimum
rates of wages payable to the categories mentioned in the Schedule
annexed there to, were revised.
13
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
8. Coming to the case on hand, one of the issues framed by the
learned Tribunal was in respect of rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle bearing No. MH-20-CR-4863 i.e. the Tractor and death of
the Deceased due to the said Accident. As regards the contention
of the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company that, their
Application for examining the Investigating Officer was opposed by
the Claimants, admittedly, there was no challenge to the order
passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the Application at Exhibit
– 44 filed by the Insurance Company to summon the Investigating
Officer in the aforesaid Crime as the Witness. Admittedly, no
eyewitness to the Accident was examined by the Claimants. The
Claimant No.3, who examined himself before the learned Tribunal,
candidly admitted that, he did not witness the Accident. It has
come in the cross-examination of Claimant No.3 that, at the time of
Accident, the motorcycle was being driven by his friend, namely,
Namdeo Jalindar Ghuge [Deceased]. The record shows that, the
Claimants moved the Application below Exhibit – 39 for issuance of
summons to the eyewitnesses of the Accident and the Owner of JCB
Machine and the learned Tribunal by order dated 24/01/2019
issued Summons only to the JCB Machine Owner. From this, it is
clear that, the Claimants wanted to and intended to examine the
eyewitnesses to the Accident. Eventually, The Claimants relied on
the Police Papers to prove the factum of motor vehicular Accident
14
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
and death of Govind Balbhim Rasane [Deceased] in the said
Accident.
9. The Police Papers shows that, Crime No.165/2018 was
registered against the unknown Driver for the offence punishable
under Sections 304-A, 279 of I.P.C and Section 134/177 of the M.V.
Act. The said Crime was registered on 12/05/2018 i.e. on the date
of Accident. The Crime Details Form speaks of the Accident to the
said motorcycle, upon which, the Deceased and his friend were
travelling. The Postmortem Report shows the name of the
Deceased. The statement of the witness recorded during the
investigation, though after three [3] days of the Accident, speaks of
the Accident due to the use of the said Tractor and the name of
Tractor Owner, on inquiry with the people gathered at the spot of
Accident. The Police Papers comprised of the Final Report under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C], which indicate that, the investigation of the
said Crime culminated in filing of Charge-sheet against the Driver
of the said Tractor. It is needless to state that, the Charge-sheet
was for the offence of rash and negligent Act by the said Tractor
Driver. Thus, the said delay of three [3] days, will not be of much
consequence in the MACP. It is settled position under the law that,
the Police Papers can be looked into by the learned Tribunal / Court
to determine the issue of negligence in the MACP. Useful reference
15
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
can be made in that regard to the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. __ of 2025 [@ SLP
(C) No.29302 of 2019] [Non-Reportable] dated January 02, 2025.
Therefore, in the light of the Police Papers available on record, non
examination of the witness to prove the factum of rash and
negligent driving of the Tractor by its Driver will not be fatal for the
Claimants.
10. As regards the employment and income of the Deceased is
concerned, though according to the Claimants, the Deceased was
earning by way of driving JCB Machine, no Driving Licence
showing that, Deceased was having a valid Driving Licence to drive
the JCB Machine was brought on record by the Claimants. The
suggestion is given in the cross-examination of Claimant No.3 that,
the Deceased was not holding the Licence to operate the JCB
Machine. Though it has come in his cross-examination that, he can
file the said documents on record, there is no document or Licence
in the name of Deceased showing that, he was having the Licence to
drive the JCB Machine.
11. To prove the monthly income of the Deceased, the Claimants
examined Tukaram Namdeo Thorve as Witness No.2 below Exhibit
– 40. He was the resident of village where the Claimants and
16
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
Deceased were resided. Though he deposed that, the Deceased was
working as Driver on the JCB Machine owned by him and he used
to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as Salary, there is no single
document in support of his said evidence. In his cross-
examination, it has come that, he was maintaining the account in
respect of expenditure and income from the two [2] JCB Machines.
His evidence shows that, his income was not taxable. He had taken
loan to purchase two [2] JCB Machines and was paying EMI of
Rs.46,000/- for one [1] JCB Machine. He was earning net income
of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month excluding all the expenses.
No receipts or vouchers were brought in evidence to support the
case that, the Deceased was driving the JCB Machine and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. Bare contention of the Claimants in
absence of Driving Licence and documents of payment to the
Deceased will not be sufficient to accept the contention that, the
Deceased was earning by driving the JCB Machine.
12. In absence of iota of evidence to show the monthly income of
Deceased, no fault can be found for consideration of monthly
income of the Deceased by the learned Tribunal @ Rs.6,000/- per
month, as the Notional Income. The learned Tribunal has
considered the said Notional Income in the light of the observations
in Papita W/o Parmeshwar Maske and Another Vs. Maharashtra
State Road Transport ; 2018 [4] Mh.L.J 865 . Even if per day
17
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
income of Rs.200/- in the village in the year – 2018 is considered,
monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as the Notional Income is proper.
The reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the Claimants on
the above referred Notification issued by the Central Government
will not be of any assistance in the facts and circumstances of this
case. The said Notification was in respect of wages payable to the
employees engaged in a particular employment. The decisions
relied by the learned Advocate for the Claimants, wherein, the
aspects of minimum wages were considered, were based on the
facts and circumstances of those cases. Hence, no interference is
call for in determination the Notional Income @ Rs.6,000/- per
month of the Deceased.
13. It has come in the cross-examination of Claimant No.3 that,
the Deceased was a Bachelor. Therefore, the deduction of ½
towards Personal and Living Expenses, 40% addition to the total
income per year of the Deceased, Multiplier of 17, as the age of
Deceased was between 26 to 30 years, the amount towards Funeral
Expenses and Loss of Estate considered and computed by the
learned Tribunal, do not call for any interference, as the same are
in accordance with the Judgments in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. [2017] 16 SCC 680.
18
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
14. As regards the contention of the learned Advocate for the
Claimants in respect of consortium is concerned, it needs to be
considered and added in the amount of compensation @
Rs.40,000/- towards Filial Consortium to the Claimants being
father, mother and brother of the Deceased in light of the Judgment
in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors. ; 2019
[4] Mh.LJ 1. As far as grant of interest is concerned, the learned
Tribunal awarded the same by relying on the Judgment in Neeta
Vs. The Div. Manager, MSRTC in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4897-4898 of 2014] dated 13/01/2015 .
The said Judgment is based on the Judgment in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association
and Ors.; MANU/SC/1255/2011.
15. In view of the above discussion, the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal needs to be re-calculated and modified
as follows :-
Nos. Particulars Amount
A Total income per year 6,000 x 12 72,000/-
B 40% to be added in total income per 72,000 + 28,800 1,00,800/-
year
C ½ deductions towards personal and 1,00,800 ÷ 2 50,400/-
living expenses
D Pecuniary loss after applying 50,400 x 17 8,56,800/-
multiplier of 17 as the deceased was
just 30 years old
E Add : Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
F Add : Loss of Estate 15,000/-
G Add : Filial Consortium 40,000 x 3 1,20,000/-
H Total Compensation payable to Claimants 10,06,800/-
19
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
16. In light of the above, the Appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Claimants is
partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order / Award stands
modified to the extent as shown in the above Chart. The
apportionment of the total compensation will be as follows :-
1. Father :- Rs. 2,00,000/-
2. Mother :- Rs. 7,06,800/-
3. Brother :- Rs. 1,00,000/-
16.1 The Operative Order in respect of investing the
amount of compensation from the Share of the Claimants is
maintained.
17. The Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
LATER ON :-
18. After the pronouncement of Judgment, the learned
Advocate for the Insurance Company seeks stay to the effect
and implementation of the Order, by which the Appeals of the
Claimants are partly allowed. He submits that, the Insurance
Company intends to challenge the same.
19. The learned Advocate for the Claimants opposes the said
prayer.
20
FA-3594-19 and FA884-2023.odt
20. As the Appeals arise out of the Motor Accident Claim,
prayer of the Insurance Company is rejected.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/April-2025
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/04/2025 18:32:29 21