Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sobha Amarsingh Rajput and Ors. - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 of 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1196 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 of 2015
Decided On : 19-10-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Ketan Joshi, Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Carvalo a/w Mr. Rupesh M. Geeta a/w Mr. Anand Chovatia, Mr. T.J. Mendon.
Headnote:
The court held that the age of the claimants, and not the age of the deceased, is the determining factor for arriving at the multiplier, especially if the deceased is a bachelor. The court also held that the addition of 50% income towards future prospects is justified in cases where the deceased was in permanent employment or Government job with regular annual increase in their salary.
Fact of the Case:
In these three appeals, the deceased in all the cases were bachelors and the claimants were their parents. The issue before the court was whether the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants should be considered for determining the multiplier, and whether additional income should be added towards future prospects.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the age of the claimants, and not the age of the deceased, is the determining factor for arriving at the multiplier, especially if the deceased is a bachelor. The court also held that the addition of 50% income towards future prospects is justified in cases where the deceased was in permanent employment or Government job with regular annual increase in their salary.
Issues: 1. Whether the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants should be considered for determining the multiplier? 2. Whether additional income should be added towards future prospects?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to arrive at its decision. In the case of Susamma Thomas v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the court had held that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher. In the case of Trilok Chandra v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the court had held that the selection of multiplier cannot, in all cases, be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. In the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the court had held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column No.4 of the 'Table' prepared in the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part. The court modified the impugned Awards in two of the appeals and dismissed the third appeal. The court also disposed of the Civil Applications filed in the appeals.
i. What could be the just and reasonable amount of compensation which the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short called as, “M.V. Act”) can award?
ii. Which are the relevant parameters to be considered by the Claims Tribunal in that regard?
iii. In case of death of an unmarried person, whether multiplier to be applied is to be based on the age of the deceased or age of the claimants?
iv. Whether the future prospects of the income of the deceased need to be considered in arriving at the pecuniary loss of the dependents, and if yes, how to assess the same?
1. These are some of the pertinent questions, that are raised for consideration, in these three appeals.
2. In view of some of the conflicting decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, on these issues, learned counsels for the respective parties have advanced elaborate submissions to assist this Court to come to its just decision and to resolve the issue to some extent.
3. As these are the common questions of law raised in these three appeals preferred by the respective Insurance Companies and as the facts of these appeals are also, more or less, the same, with minor differences in the particulars here or there, these appeals are heard together and are being decided together by this common judgment.
4. All the appeals are admitted and with the consent and on the request made by learned counsels for the parties, they are heard finally at the stage of admission itself.
5. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are as under:-
FIRST APPEAL NO.738 OF 2015
In this appeal, United India Insurance Company, takes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 20th August, 2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pune in M.A.C.P. No. 967 of 2011. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal has directed the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No.3-the owner of the vehicle, to pay, jointly and severally, amount of Rs.50,69,000/- to the 1st and 2nd respondent - the claimants, by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the entire amount.
6. In this appeal, the claimants are the parents of the deceased Vijaysingh Amarsingh Rajput, who was a divorcee having no issue and running the age of 32 years at the time of accident. He was working as 'Executive' in Zensar Technologies Ltd. since 2010 and getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, in addition to the incentives. On 16.8.2011, at about 9 a.m. he was proceeding from Alandi Road towards his office of Zensar Techologies at Kharadi on his motorcycle, bearing NO. MH-2/FT-2020, in a moderate speed and by observing all traffic rules. Near Dighi Octroi Check-Post, one petrol tanker, bearing No.MH-12-BJ-6447, came from opposite direction in a high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. The wheel of the tanker passed over the head of the deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Respondent No.1 and 2 in this appeal, who are the parents of the deceased, hence filed the claim petition against respondent No.3-the owner of the tanker, and appellant-Insurance Company, claiming compensation amount of Rs.60,00,000/- on all admissible heads.
7. In support of their case, respondent No.1–mother of the deceased, examined herself and stated on oath that, at the time of accident, deceased was earning income of Rs.40,000/- per month. He was working as 'H.R. Executive' in Zensar Technologies Ltd. since December, 2010. Prior to that, he was working in WNS Global and SARK Enterprises. He has also received various awards. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants have also examined one Mr. Yogesh Gothankar to prove that the deceased was working in Zensar Technologies Ltd. as 'H.R. Executive' and his last drawn salary was Rs. 37,990/-. Pay Slip and Pay Certificate of the deceased were proved, accordingly, vide Exhibit Nos.43 and 44.
8. On t
