Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nandaben Dineshbhai Dataniya on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4474 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
======================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
NANDABEN DINESHBHAI DATANIYA & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6,7
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate on record for the appellant - insurance company and Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 - original claimants.
2. The notice of admission is reported to have been served Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined upon respondent nos.4 to 7. However, no appearance has been entered objecting the present appeal at the instance of the appellant - insurance company. Noticing the limited controversy raised in the present appeal, the appeal is peremptorily heard with the assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the appellant - insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 8th January, 2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad Rural in MACP no.1834 of 2014, whereby the claim petition preferred by the present respondent nos.1 to 5 - original claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed, thereby holding them entitled to seek recovery of an amount of Rs.33,82,283/- towards compensation from the original opponents who are held jointly and severally liable to pay such amount of compensation, with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, with proportionate costs. The Tribunal has further directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined compensation with the concerned Tribunal after deducting the amount of any interim compensation being paid under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 within stipulated period. The appellant
- insurance company has therefore approached in appeal.
4. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present appeal is confined to the issue of the multiplier of 9 as adopted by the Tribunal, while considering the loss of dependency, on higher side. Learned advocate had drawn attention of this Court to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, more particularly in para-32 to point-out that indisputably the deceased was a Government employee discharging his duty as a Clerk in a Govt. Polytechnic College and was aged 57 years and 8 months at the time of accident. Learned advocate had therefore submitted that the deceased was about to retire on reaching age of superannuation viz. 58 years. Learned Advocate had therefore submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered multiplier of '1' while considering the loss of dependency.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined the grounds raised in the appeal memo and has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on higher side and has erroneously considered 15% prospective income in light of the aforesaid undisputed facts. He has therefore urged this Court to slice down the future loss of income as awarded to the claimants. 4.2 As regards the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, it was submitted that the claimants include the widow of the deceased and his four major children. He has therefore submitted that at the most the Tribunal could have considered an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards the loss of spousal consortium, since the major children were not dependent.
4.3 The learned advocate had also disputed the interest being awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% on higher side. According to him, the prevailing bank rates at the time of the accident was 5 to 6% and has therefore urged this Court to allow the present appeal and to modify the interim judgment and award.
Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
5. Per contra, Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5 original claimants has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions as according to him in the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference in the present appeal. 5.1 Learned advocate at the outset has objected to the submission, with regard to the multiplier of '9' being erroneously applied in the facts of the case. The reliance was placed on the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayasree and others Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2021 ACJ 2685. In a case where a Assistant Professor aged 52 years the deceased was approaching the age of retirement, the issue arose for consideration as to whether the High Court was justified in applying the yardstick of split multiplier. After following the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. R. Madhusudhan Vs. Administrative Officer, 2011 ACJ 743, agreed with the view while considering compensation, the future prospects of the deceased has to be considered and in absence of specific Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined realm and evidence on record, the Courts should not apply split multiplier in routine recourse. Consequently, the Court applied the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Shethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), wherein the Constitutional Bench has directed addition of 15% of the salary in the case of deceased between the age group of 50 and 60 years as a thumb rule more particularly, when the deceased was occupied on a permanent job. The Court, thus, held that the High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier in the facts of the case.
5.2 The reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarladevi and others Vs. Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2014 ACJ 2391 (SC). Learned advocate pointed-out the facts and has submitted that the deceased was aged around 58 years and was a permanent employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed and set aside the order of the High Court reducing the multiplier from '8', as adopted by the claim Tribunal to '2'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined committed error in not considering the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transportation & Anr., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), insofar as the deduction of one-fourth of the monthly income of the deceased to arrive at the multiplicand and reducing the compensation by adopting the split multiplier. The Court has ultimately considered appropriate multiplier of '8' by following the principles laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). Learned advocate has therefore submitted that applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier of '9'. 5.3 As regards the other submissions made by learned advocate on the issue of the amount of compensation being awarded on the higher side is concerned, learned advocate had relied upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and has reiterated that the amount of compensation is just and proper. He has therefore urged this Court to dismiss the present appeal.
Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate appearing for the respective parties in light of the various decisions relied upon and the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the only issue which falls for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the claim Tribunal committed any error in applying multiplier of 9 while awarding the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, in the case of deceased Government employee?
7. On careful consideration of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while examining the issue of quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the foundational facts, the Tribunal had noticed the discrepancy in the age of the deceased being mentioned in the relevant documents produced on record for consideration, wherein in the treatment book of V.S. Hospital, the age of the deceased was reported as 52 years, whereas the admission card of the Shrey Hospital, it was mentioned as 55 years. The Tribunal upon close appreciation of the evidence brought on record has noted from the Income Tax Returns produced for Assessment Year 2014-15, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined mentioned as 8th September, 1957 and considering the date of accident, the Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 57 years 28 days at the time of accident.
8. Considering the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it is evident that Tribunal has mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) for adopting multiplier.
9. Having noted the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned, coming back to the core contention raised, to consider the split multiplier of '1' in the facts of the case, on the ground that the deceased was to retire on reaching the age of superannuation, this Court does not find any substance in the aforesaid submission in absence of any exceptional circumstances and evidence in this regard being brought on record to arrive at conclusion that there was no future prospects of earning by deceased post retirement. Whereas, on other hand, the uncontroverted facts remains that the deceased at the age of 57 years was occupied on a permanent post in a Government Polytechnic College as a Clerk. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined after considering the inconsistencies amongst the decisions of the various Courts, while considering the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the Courts used to consider the multiplier method and alternatively used to follow the multiplier indicated under Schedule-II of Section 163 of the Act of 1988, analysed the decision in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the second Schedule of the claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which also included the age group of 56 to 60 years. The Court held as under :-
"41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.
42. 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."
10. In the recent pronouncement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Singh and Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. 2025 INSC 161, in case of Government employee aged between 57-58 years employed as a phone mechanic with BSNL, has uphold the Tribunal's order of adopting multiplier of '9'. The Court considered the earlier judgment in the case of Puttamma and Ors. Vs. K. L. Narayana Reddy and Anr., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 45 and held that left over of service period of a government employee cannot Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined be construed as a special reason for applying split multiplier for assessing the compensation. In normal course, compensation has to be assessed by applying multiplier as indicated in case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Appropriate would be to consider the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Singh (supra).
"11.1 The High Court applied a split method. It was opined that after the death of the deceased in the accident he would have drawn salary of ₹39,500/- for a period of 22 months. Thereafter, an increment was due to him, by adding the same for another 07 months before retirement, he would have drawn salary of ₹42,500/- per month. Thereafter, the deceased would have been entitled to pension of ₹21,250/-. The compensation was assessed in terms thereof. As far as loss of compensation on account of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal had awarded ₹1,00,000/-, which was reduced to ₹40,000/-. Additionally, amount of ₹15,000/- was granted on account of loss of estate. The compensation granted on account of funeral expenses was reduced from ₹25,000/- to ₹15,000/-. As against ₹28,66,994/- awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court assessed the compensation at ₹19,66,833/-.
11.2 An examination of the High Court's decision reveals that substantial reduction in compensation is on account of application of a 'split multiplier' to the income of deceased. In our considered view, the High Court has erred in not considering the principles laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma v. DTC6 and Sumathi v. M/s. Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined National Insurance Company Ltd.
11.3 This Court in Sumathi (supra) addressed a similar situation. The deceased was 54 years of age and was due to retire from government service in four years when the fatal accident occurred. The High Court assessed the compensation by taking the total salary of the deceased for the leftover period of four years and fifty percent of the salary for the post-retirement period. The High Court awarded a total compensation of ₹25,25,000/- instead of ₹40,76,496/- awarded by the Tribunal. This Court set aside the decision of High Court and held that split multiplier cannot be applied unless specific reasons are recorded. It was opined as under:
"9. The High Court has applied split multiplier by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Puttamma & Ors. v. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr.,8 without recording any specific reason, contrary to the said judgment. The High Court has applied split multiplier only on the ground that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of the accident and leftover service was only four years. In the case of Puttamma & Ors. v. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr., in similar circumstances, where the split multiplier was applied for the purpose of assessing compensation by the High Court, this Court has allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Para 66 of the judgment of the case of Puttamma & Ors. v. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The relevant para 66 reads as under:Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined "66. In the appeal which was filed by the claimants before the High Court, the High Court instead of deciding the just compensation allowed a meagre enhancement of compensation. In doing so, the High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier system generally used in the light of the decision in Sarla Verma case without disclosing any reason. The High Court has also not considered the question of prospect of future increase in salary of the deceased though it noticed that the deceased would have continued in pensionable services for more than 10 years. When the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of death it wrongly applied multiplier of 10 and not 13 as per decision in Sarla Verma. Thus, we fail to appreciate as to why the High Court chose to apply split multiplier and applied multiplier of
10. We, thus, find that the judgment of the High Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and is fit to be set aside for not having considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting split multiplier method against the law laid down by this Court. In view of our aforesaid finding, we hold that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and hold that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,43,688.
They shall also get interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint petition. Respondent 2 Insurance Company is directed to Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined pay the enhanced/additional compensation and interest to the claimants within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in their name."
From a reading of the above judgment, it is clear that in normal course, the compensation is to be calculated by applying the multiplier, as per the judgment of this Court in the Case of Sarla Verma. Split multiplier cannot be applied unless specific reasons are recorded. The finding of the High Court that the deceased was having leftover service of only four years, cannot be construed as a special reason, for applying the split multiplier for the purpose of assessing the compensation. In normal course, compensation is to be assessed by applying multiplier as indicated by this Court in the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma. As no other special reason is recorded for applying the split multiplier, judgment of the High Court is fit to be set aside by restoring the award of the Tribunal."
(emphasis supplied) 11.4 In Sarla Verma's case (supra), this Court has held that while calculating the compensation, the multiplier to be used should start 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. Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined 11.5 From the above, it is clear that normally Courts and Tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgement of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded. In the case in hand, neither any special reason has been recorded by the High Court while applying the split method nor we find there is one in the facts of the case. In the case in hand, the deceased was a technically qualified person and people are generally healthy at that age and continue working even after retirement.
12. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects and position of law, in our view, the compensation on account of loss of income while applying the multiplier of 9 by the Tribunal without applying the split method is the correct calculation on that account. Moreover, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had failed to award future prospects while calculating the compensation. Considering the age of the deceased, the appellant would be entitled to future prospects @ 15%. On account of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount of ₹15,000/- each awarded by the High Court is as per law. As far as loss of consortium is concerned, there are three claimants, namely, the widow, one son and one daughter. They would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium @ ₹40,000/- each. The Tribunal had erred in awarding only a sum of ₹1,00,000/- in total."
11. Considering the aforesaid principles in the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, considering the bracketed age group of 56 to 60 years where the Hon'ble Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Supreme Court has suggested multiplier of '9', this Court does not find any fault with the approach of the Tribunal while considering the petition under Section 166 of the Act, even in case of the Government employee who was to retire on his reaching the age of superannuation. Even otherwise, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayshree (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not found favour with the method of split multiplier in case of the age group of 50 and 60 years as a thumb rule, where deceased had a permanent job, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of the appellant insurance company, in absence of any special circumstances being brought on record to suggest that deceased had no future prospects.
12. As regards the submission made by learned advocate about the amount of compensation being awarded on higher side is concerned, on close examination of the findings and reasons assigned by the tribunal, the tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was employed as a senior clerk in government polytechnic college and as evident from the Income Tax Returns of Assessment Year 2014-15 being Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined produced on record at Exh.53, wherein the gross total income of the deceased was reflected as Rs.4,78,732/- and after deducting income tax to the extent of Rs.24,054/- from that amount, the Tribunal has considered the total income of the deceased as Rs.4,54,678/- per annum. Considering the aforesaid income as the basis, the Tribunal has further noted the age of the deceased as determined to be 57 years at the time of the accident and has accordingly applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), holding the claimants entitled to get addition of income to the extent of 15%. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the loss of dependency as Rs.4,54,678/- + Rs.68,202/- = Rs.5,22,880/-. The Tribunal has further noted that the claimants includes the wife of the deceased and his four major children. The original claimants nos.2 to 5 are self-dependent and as such they cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal has accordingly considered one-third deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in considering deduction of one-third Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and has accordingly rightly determined the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.31,37,283/- by applying multiplier of '9'. 12.1 As regards the amount of compensation under the conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal has in true spirit applied the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in the facts of the case while awarding the amount of loss of consortium to the extent of (Rs.44,000 x 5) = Rs.2,20,000/- + Rs.25,000/- addition under the head of loss of estate. The total comes to Rs.2,45,000/-. 12.2 As regards the amount of compensation under the head of loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses is concerned, Tribunal has considered Rs.25,000/- each and has accordingly determined the total amount of compensation under the conventional heads to the tune of Rs.2,45,000/-.
13. Considering the aforesaid amounts awarded under the different heads, the Tribunal has awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.33,82,283/-. The Tribunal has further considered the year of the occurrence of accident and Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined after considering the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the award of interest has to be normally based on the bank rates prevailing at the time of accident, has arrived at a conclusion to award interest at a rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. On the issue of negligence and liability, in absence of any challenge being made by the present appellant - insurance company, this Court having noted the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, is not inclined to interfere with the same and are hereby confirmed.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is not entertained and is hereby dismissed.
15. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, since the entire award amount as directed by this Court while considering application for stay, being disbursed in part and part of it lying in FDRs being invested with the concerned Nationalized Bank, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release the fixed deposit amount lying in the FDRs on the date of its maturity, in favour of the original claimants subject to their verification and strictly as per guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Court in this regard.
16. With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed of. Let the writ of this order be forwarded to the concerned Tribunal for its compliance.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...sfs/10.09 & 16.09 Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 01:02:09 IST 2025