Bombay High Court
Smt Maya Rajendra @ Babarao Yas & Others vs National Insurance Co.Ltd & Olthers on 13 February, 2017
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 176 of 2005
Applicants : 1) Smt Maya wd/o Rajendra @ Babarao Vyas,
aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
2) Rajeep s/o Rajendra @ Babarao Vyas, aged
about 24 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
Both residents of Kondhali, Tahsil Katol,
District Nagpur
3) Smt Tarabai wd/o Govindsingh Vyas .. Deleted
versus
Respondents: 1) National Insurance Co. Ltd., through its
Manager, Ajni Chowk, Nagpur
2) Ramkrishna s/o Natthuji Rewatkar, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Plot No. 56, Old Nandanvan, Nagpur 2B. Surendra s/o Ramkrishna Rewatkar, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Plot No. 56, Old Nandanvan, Nagpur ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 ::: 2 Shri K. M. Kuthe, Advocate for appellants Shri G. N. Khanzode, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Coram : A. S. Chandurkar, J Dated : 13th February 2017 Oral Judgment
1. The claimants in the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seek enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Nagpur.
2. On 7.10.1992 the husband of appellant no. 1 - Rajendra was going on his motor-cycle when his vehicle was dashed by a truck from the rear side. Said Rajendra succumbed to his injuries and, therefore, his legal heirs filed petition under Section 166 of the said Act claiming compensation. The claim, as made, was opposed by the respondent and by the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2004, the Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1,67,000/- to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Shri Kuthe, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in awarding meagre compensation. It was submitted that Rajendra was doing agricultural ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 ::: 3 operations and he was earning an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month. He was also doing the business of running a saw-mill and due to his death, the income from the said source has stopped. Considering the age of the victim who was about 45 years old, it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal should have awarded higher compensation. He also submitted that the grant of compensation @ 6% per annum was not justified and interest at a higher rate ought to be granted.
4. Shri Khanzode, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned judgment. According to him, as no proper evidence was led by the appellants about the income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that by applying the proper multiplier, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation. In absence of any substantial evidence on record, there was no scope for enhancing the amount of compensation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the impugned judgment. I have also gone through the records of the case.
6. The following point arises for consideration :
::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 ::: 4"Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation ?
7. Appellant no. 1 examined herself at Exhibit 32 in which she deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 60,000/- per annum. This income was earned from agricultural sources. In her cross-examination, she admitted that there was no document placed on record to indicate the income earned from agriculture. Another witness examined was, the Talathi at Exhibit 43 who placed on record the 7/12 extracts of the land owned by the family. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal found that the name of Rajendra was not mentioned in the revenue record. In absence of any other evidence on record, the Tribunal took into consideration the notional income of the deceased to Rs. 15,000/- per annum. This was taken on the basis of the II Schedule to the said Act. Inasmuch as the accident in question took place on 7.10.1992, said finding that the notional income of the deceased was required to be taken at Rs. 15,000/-
per annum, therefore, does not call for any interference. The multiplier of "16" has also been rightly applied by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 35 years. The age of the deceased is not seriously disputed by the respondents. After deducting 1/3rd amount for personal ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 ::: 5 expenses, the total loss of dependency was Rs. 1,60,000/-.
8. It is, however, to be noted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. A sum of Rs. 2000/- has been granted for funeral expenses.
Considering the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh & ors v. Rajbir Singh & ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, it is duty of the Court to award fair compensation. It has been further observed that for these conventional heads, the amounts normally awarded are at Rs. 100,000/-. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I find that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation towards conventional heads. On said counts, therefore, appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 100,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 100,000/- towards loss of love and affection and further amount of Rs. 100,000/- for loss of estate. The accident having taken place in the year 1992, additional funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/- are granted. The enhancement would, therefore, be to the extent of Rs.
3,15,000/- besides the amount already awarded.
9. The Claims Tribunal has granted compensation @ 6% per annum. Considering the date of accident and the fact that the proceedings were pending for a long time, compensation can be directed ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 ::: 6 to be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The point, as framed, stands answered accordingly.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:
Order
(a) It is held that the appellants are entitled to further compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- besides the amount already granted and excluding the amount of no fault liability. .
(b) The amount of enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition till its realization.
(c) The judgment in Claim Petition No. 357 of 1998 is modified in aforesaid terms. First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
A. S. CHANDURKAR, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2017 00:57:26 :::