Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
Manjari Dilip Chunekar & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 91 of 2015
Decided On : 11-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rahul Mehta I/b KMC Legal Venture for the Appellant in FA/91/2015 and for Applicant in CAF/1753/2014
Mr. Sunil S. Bhide for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
The income of the deceased must be enhanced for the purpose of computation i.e. by 50% where the deceased was below 40 years; by 30% where he belonged to the age group 40-50 years and by 15% where the deceased was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - DEATH OF HUSBAND - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION - NEGLIGENCE - INCOME OF THE DECEASED - MULTIPLICAND - MULTIPLIER - INTEREST - PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Dilip Chunekar, his brother Satish, sister-in- law Madura Chunekar, brother-in-law Anil and maternal brother Suresh Madhukar Athalye were proceeding in a car, bearing No. BLD/2931 from Pune to Satara to meet the ailing father of the deceased. Dilip Chunekar was driving the car at the relevant time. When the vehicle reached Shirvar near Pune-Satara Road, there was a traffic jam and all vehicles had come to a halt. A truck bearing No. MTQ/8521 was ahead of the vehicle, driven by the deceased and was in a stationary condition. Dilip Chunekar also stopped his vehicle behind the said truck. A truck bearing No. MTL/5919, suddenly came from behind in excessive speed and rammed into the vehicle driven by the deceased Dilip. The said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the collision with the vehicle, driven by the deceased. As a result of the impact, the car of the deceased rammed into the stationary vehicle standing ahead resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased and his sister-in-law Smt. Madura and grievous injuries to the other co-passengers in the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 88,46,000/- to the respondent-claimants, with interest @ 12% per annum (p.a.), from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
Issues: 1. Whether the issue of negligence has been proved? 2. Whether the last income tax return filed by the deceased for the year 1996-97 ought not to have been considered, as the same was filed after the demise of the deceased? 3. Whether the income of the deceased has not been properly calculated by the Tribunal, keeping in mind the pronouncements of the Apex Court in that regard and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same? 4. Whether the interest awarded to the respondent-claimants was exorbitant and contrary to the well settled principles laid down in motor accident cases?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Negligence has been proved by the respondent-claimants, by adducing evidence in this regard. Satish Chunekar (witness No. 2), an eye witness and a co-passenger in the car, which was driven by the deceased, was examined to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. There is nothing substantial brought on record by the appellant, in the cross examination of the said witnesses so to disbelieve his testimony. 2. The income tax returns for the year 1996–97 reflects an income of Rs. 4,22,503/-– and as such, could not be relied upon, considering that the same was filed after the demise of the deceased. He also submitted that the income tax returns of three years i.e. Exhibits 43 to 45 were not proved. 3. The Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 60,000/- per month (Rs. 30,000/- from each business) and consequently erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 88,46,000/-. 4. The interest granted on the compensation amount by the Tribunal to the respondent-claimants is on the higher side. Although, the claim petition is of 1996, the delay that has occurred in the said case is not attributable to the appellant alone. Both the parties are responsible for the delay, resulting in the claim petition of 1996 being decided in 2013.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs;The impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent-claimants will now be entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,41,604/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization. The claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of claim application.
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21st October, 2013, by which the learned District Judge-6, an Additional Member, MACT, Thane was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 88,46,000/- to the respondent-claimants, with interest @ 12% per annum (p.a.), from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
2. Considering the nature of controversy and the fact that the claim petition is of 1996, the appeal deserves to be taken up for final hearing forthwith. Accordingly, parties were put to notice earlier.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has impugned the aforesaid judgment and award on several counts- (i) that the issue of negligence has not been proved; (ii) that the last income tax return filed by the deceased for the year 1996-97 ought not to have been considered, as the same was filed after the demise of the deceased; (iii) that the income of the deceased has not been properly calculated by the Tribunal, keeping in mind the pronouncements of the Apex Court in that regard and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same; and (iv) that the interest awarded to the respondent-claimants was exorbitant and contrary to the well settled principles laid down in motor accident cases.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supported the impugned judgment and award. He contended that the first respondent-claimant had brought on record all the documents on the basis of which the award was passed and that evidence was adduced in support of the same. He further submitted that the leave to defend granted to the appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`M. V. Act') was contrary to the provision, as it was not a reasoned order and as such the appeal filed under Section 173 of the M. V. Act, was not maintainable.
5. Before we deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to advert to the facts and the evidence that has come on record in the present case.
Deceased Dilip Madhukar Chunekar was the husband of the first respondent, father of the second respondent and the son of the third respondent. On 30th March, 1996, Dilip Chunekar, his brother Satish, sisterin- law Madura Chunekar, brother-in-law Anil and maternal brother Suresh Madhukar Athalye were proceeding in a car, bearing No. BLD/2931 from Pune to Satara to meet the ailing father of the deceased. The deceased was driving the car at the relevant time. When the vehicle reached Shirvar near Pune-Satara Road, there was a traffic jam and all vehicles had come to a halt. A truck bearing No. MTQ/8521 was ahead of the vehicle, driven by the deceased and was in a stationary condition. Dilip Chunekar also stopped his vehicle behind the said truck. A truck bearing No. MTL/5919, suddenly came from behind in excessive speed and rammed into the vehicle driven by the deceased Dilip. The said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the collision with the vehicle, driven by the deceased. As a result of the impact, the car of the deceased rammed into the stationary vehicle standing ahead resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased and his sister-in-law Smt. Madura and grievous injuries to the other co-passengers in the vehicle. According to the respondent-claimants, due to the gross negligence of the driver of the vehicle i.e. truck No. MTL/5919, the aforesaid accident took place, resulting in the untimely deaths of Dilip and Madura. A criminal case was registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending truck bearing No. MTL/5919 was convicted in the said case. Pursuant to the said accident, the respondent-claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Thane being MACT Application No. 1012 of 1996. The said claim pet
