Bombay High Court
Keshavrao S/O Shankarrao Deshmukh And ... vs Faizan Khan S/O Rafique Khan And Others on 21 February, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:2362
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.949 OF 2022
1. Mr Keshavrao S/o. Shankarrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 69 Yrs., Occu.: Retired,
2. Mr Yogesh S/o. Keshavrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 37 Yrs., Occu.: Private Service,
3. Mr Ramabai Wd/o. Shankarrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 86 Yrs., Occu.: Nil,
All R/o. Behind Saraswati Vidyalaya, .... APPELLANTS
Gorakshan Road, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
// V E R S U S //
1. Faizan Khan S/o. Rafique Khan,
Aged about - Adult, Occu. Driver,
R/o. C/o. M/s. Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
Near Octroi No. 10, Opp. Wadi Police,
Chowki, Amravati Road, Wadi Nagpur.
2. M/s. Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
Truck owner,
R/o. Near Octroi No. 10,
Opp. Wadi Police Chowki,
Amaravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through Divisional Manager,
Office at Ayodhya Building,
Behind Akruti Furniture, Bajaj Nagar, ... RESPONDENTS
Nagpur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Aastha Sharma, Advocate for the appellants
Mr D. N. Kukdey, Advocate for respondent No.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt
2
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 21/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard. 2 ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith the
consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
3 In this appeal, filed by the appellants/claimants, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim was partly allowed. Learned Member of the Tribunal, while quantifying the compensation, applied the split multiplier. The appellants/ claimants have challenged this part of the order passed by the Tribunal. According to them, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Valli & others .v/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. 1, the 1 (2022) 5 SCC 107
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 3 compensation cannot be determined by applying the two multipliers. The insurance Company-respondent No. 3 has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. So as far as the insurance company is concerned, the insurance company has accepted the judgment and award.
4 Learned Advocate appearing for the insurance company-respondent No. 3 submitted that the appellants/ claimants are not entitled to compensation inasmuch as they were not dependent on the deceased. The claimant No.1 himself is a pensioner. The remaining claimants have an independent source of income. Besides, the learned Advocate for the insurance company submitted that, considering the peculiar facts, the split multiplier/two multipliers applied by the Tribunal was fully justified.
5 In view of the above, the narration of the facts in detail is not necessary. The only question that needs to be
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 4 addressed is whether the learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in applying two multipliers ?
6 In order to address this question, it would be relevant to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R Valli (supra). In the case of R Valli the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others .v/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2 and other judgments. In my view, Para Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this judgment would be relevant to address the issue. The same are extracted below:
6. The judgment in Sarla Verma was affirmed in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]. Both the judgments were affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. This Court in Pranay Sethi held as under:
"44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and "income" means actual 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 5 income less the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur.
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% 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%, 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%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier."
7. In Pranay Sethi, this Court held that the age of the deceased is the basis for applying suitable multiplier and that the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects. The future prospects were held to 15% in respect of a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years.
8. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to certain orders of the High Courts reported as Uma Shankar & Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors (2014 SCC OnLine Mad
846), Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v. Kitab Singh & Ors (2011 SCC OnLine Del 2843) and Union of India &
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 6 Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar & Ors (2000 SCC OnLine Kar 406) to support the applicability of split multiplier i.e. multiplier upto the date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement.
9. The judgments referred to by Mr. Tiwari are prior to the enunciation of law by this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, such judgments no longer can be said to be good law as suitable multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms of para 59.7 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi.
10. A three-Judge Bench in an order reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur & Ors (2020 SCC OnLine SC 410) has applied the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased even if he was a bachelor. The Court held as under:
"23. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud [(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependents. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be taken into account. Thus, even in the case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied."
11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi."
7 The Apex Court has categorically held that two
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 7 multipliers cannot be applied in the method of determination of the compensation. Applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of the supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma.
8 In my view, the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company cannot be entertained for more than one reason. The insurance company has not challenged the judgment and award. The findings whereby the liability has been saddled and the compensation determined has been accepted by the insurance company. The insurance company, in this appeal therefore can justify its contention as to how the application of two multiplier is in accordance with the law. In my view, the law laid down in the case of R. Valli (supra) does not permit me to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the insurance company. Accordingly, the order passed by the member of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal determining
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 8 the compensation by applying two multipliers is required to be modified. For the purpose of determining the compensation and more particularly for applying the multiplier the annual income of the deceased will have to be considered. The annual income undisputedly was Rs.4,18,599/- Learned Advocate has submitted a chart of the compensation payable based on the annual income of Rs.4,18,599/- with necessary deductions and additions on account of future prospects. In my view, the appellants are entitled to get the compensation as set out in the following chart.
Annual income of the deceased. Rs. 4,18,599/- (-) 1/3rd deduction as per the Judgment (-) Rs. 2,79,066/- of Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(Rs.4,18,599/- - Rs.1,39,533/-) (+) 15% Future prospects as per the (+) Rs.41,859.9/- judgment of National Ins. Co. Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Salary for multiplier Rs.3,20,925.9/-
(x) "8" multiplier as per the Judgment of Rs. 25,67,407.2/- Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport (loss of dependency) Corporation (2009)6SCC 121 applicable for the age group 56 to 60 years.
(Rs. 3,20,925.9/- x 8)
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 9 Loss of Consortium (+) Rs. 1,32,000/ (+) Rs. 44,000/- for each claimant as per Judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130 followed in AIR 2020 (SC) 3076 United India Insurance Co. v/s Satinder Kaur. (10% increase as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment) (Rs. 44,000/- x 3) (2023 AIR (SC) 44) Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 16,500/- Total compensation payable to claimants Rs. 27,32,407.2/-
(Rs.25,67,407.2/- + Rs. 1,32,000/- + Rs.16,500/- + Rs. 16,500/-) Total compensation granted by the Rs.6,92,152/- + 7.5 % Tribunal p.a. Total enhanced compensation Rs.20,40,255.2/- + (Rs.27,32,407.2/- - Rs.6,92,152/-) + interest 7.5 % p.a. interest 7.5 % p.a. 9 On the basis of the annual income of the deceased, the calculation mentioned in the chart are correct. Appropriate multiplier has been applied. Appropriate deduction has been made. The appellants are entitled to the compensation, as mentioned in the chart.
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 10 10 In view of the above chart, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The first appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola stands modified.
iii) The respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,40,255/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five only) to the appellants.
iv) The amount of compensation already paid will be adjusted against this enhancement.
v) The entitlement of the appellants to get a share of the amount shall be as directed by the Tribunal.
(vi) The compensation amount must be deposited within four months with the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Akola from the date of this judgment.
3.FA.949.2022 motor accident claim.odt 11
(vii) The appellants shall be entitled to interest @ of 7.5% p.a. on this amount from the date of the claim petition i.e. 01.02.2013 till realization of the amount.
(viii) After depositing of the amount with the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Akola the same shall be paid over to the appellants, with accrued interest, if any.
11 The first appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/02/2024 19:01:19