Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 340
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
National Insurance Company Limited, Civil Lines, Through its Divisional Manager
Versus
Shrawanji & Others
First Appeal No. 505 of 2002
Decided On : 11-02-2014
For the Appellant:G.N. Khanzode, Advocate.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Choice of multiplier. - Multiplier is required to be selected on basis of age of deceased and not on basis of age of dependants. - The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.
It marks a significant change in the factors which are required to be taken into account for selection of multiplier and, therefore, this Court would have to follow the same.
The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 as given in the second schedule. However, the multiplier that has to be chosen would have to be as per the law laid down in the aforestated case of Amrit Bhanu Shali by considering the age of the deceased at the time of death and the applicable multiplier would have to be selected from column 4 of the table prepared by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 (4) All MR 429 (SC). The age of the deceased was 23 at the time of accident and, therefore, as per column 4 of the said table, the appropriate multiplier would be, not 17, but 18 in this case. By application of this multiplier to the annual family contribution made by the deceased Manoj, which is of Rs. 27,696/-, the total loss of dependency of respondent comes to Rs. 4,98,528/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,99,000/-. Funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/ - would have to be added to this amount and that would make the total compensation payable to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to be at Rs. 5,01,000/-.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Monthly income of deceased. - Monthly income of deceased that is to be taken into account for purpose of claim for compensation, is monthly income earned by deceased on date of accident together with other applicable criterion, if any. - The question however, is What should have been the correct figure of the monthly income of the deceased? According to the counsel for the appellant, only the net income of the deceased at the time of death should be taken into consideration and nothing more. There is, however, only half truth in this contention. Not only the income at the time of death which should be taken into account but also the possibility of addition to it on account of further prospects that should be considered, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 (4) All MR 429 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the said case of Sarla Verma, 2009 (4) All MR 429 (SC) that if the deceased was self-employed or in permanent job and below 40 years of age, 50% of actual salary should be added to actual salary income and if the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years, 30% of actual salary should be added to actual salary income. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted and it would be necessary to make further addition of 50% of actual salary to the salary earned by the deceased at the time of his death on account of future prospects. Such addition has been found necessary as a person who is self-employed or in a permanent job, is expected to make further progress in his profession or job and earn higher income as he carries on further in his profession or job. Court has already found that the net salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 3,075/- per month. 50% of the actual salary would be Rs. 1,537.50 and adding the same to the net income, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,612.50. It is rounded off to Rs.4,615/- per month. So, this amount would have to be taken as monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death.
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award passed on 30th April, 2002 in Claim Petition No.757 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur.
2. The present respondent Nos.1 to 4 had preferred Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Manoj son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. Death of Manoj occurred in a road accident which took place on 19th June, 1997 on Nagpur-Chhindwara Road, Near Koradi Tank. On that day, the deceased was proceeding by his Scooter bearing registration No.MP-28-3675 and as he reached a spot situated near Koradi Tank, one truck bearing registration No.MTG-2042, gave a dash to the Scooter of the deceased from behind and as a result deceased Manoj sustained injuries and died on the spot. The truck was owned by the respondent No.5 and insured with appellant. It was driven by the respondent No.6, against whom the present appeal has been already dismissed in default. It was the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that this accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. They submitted that deceased Manoj was an employee of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and working as a Primary School Teacher at Kochi, Taluka Saoner, Distt. Nagpur and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. They submitted that they were dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, they filed a Claim Petition against the present appellant and respondent Nos.5 and 6 claiming compensation of Rs.23,00,000/-, which was restricted to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and directed the appellant, respondent No.5 and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the same with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
4. Not satisfied with this award, the appellant/ Insurance Company is before this Court in this first appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. G.N. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents, although duly served.
6. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and award and record of the Court below. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :
“Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the M.A.C.T. Nagpur is just and proper ?”
7. The appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the grounds that the Tribunal has taken into account the monthly income of deceased Manoj at Rs.6,000/- per month, although there was no evidence in this regard, that it has made wrong calculations in determining the total dependency of respondent Nos.1 to 4 upon deceased Manoj and that it applied wrong multiplier in fixing the final amount of compensation.
8. On going through the evidence adduced by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, I find that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased Manoj to be at Rs.6,000/- per month. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Manoj was in permanent employment of Zilla Parishad and was working as a Primary Teacher in the Primary School of Zilla Parishad at Kochi. His salary certificate has been proved through the evidence of PW-3 Anil Tijare (Exhibit18). The salary certificate is at Exhibit-27 and it shows that at the time of death, gross monthly salary of the deceased Manoj was Rs.3,665/-. If we deduct the statutory dues, which were of Rs.590/in total, as seen from the salary certificate (vide Exhibit-27), the net salary of the deceased would come to Rs.3,075/- per month. No doubt, PW-3 Anil has deposed that deceased Manoj was eligible to draw pay and allowances as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and according to those recommendations, his gross pay would have been Rs.6,000/- per month. But, he has not stated the date from which the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission would have been or were to be implemented. There is no evidence brough
