JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Smt. Anita Mategaonkar for the Appellant-Insurance Company and learned Advocate Shri P.R. Agrawal for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Though respondent No.5-driver and respondent No.6-owner of the bus are served by paper publication, they have not appeared.

2. After hearing them what I gather is there is no dispute about involvement of the bus and there is some dispute about negligence of the bus driver. In fact, major area of the dispute is about application of principle of future prospect and multiplier to be applied.

3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) held bus driver respondent No.2 negligent and responsible for the death of Vikram Sasode. He was the passenger in the bus travelling from Pune to Amravati. His monthly income after deduction from salary was considered at Rs.38,640/- and by applying the principles, compensation at the rate of Rs.72,85,000/- along with 6% interest was quantified. The driver, owner and the Insurance Company were directed to pay the compensation. This is the appeal by the Insurance Company.

4. The Tribunal believed the testimony of Sonali Sasode wife of the deceased and Ranjit Solanke-Senior Executive Officer Reliance Communication Limited. So also, the documentary evidence were considered by the Tribunal. The owner of the bus gave evidence through one Shankar Vishnu Ohal. The main focus of the argument on behalf of the Insurance Company is as follows:-

a) There is inconsistency in between the owner and driver of the bus about the circumstances under which the driver hits the road divider.

b) The father of the deceased having independent income cannot be said to be dependent.

c) The Tribunal has wrongly given the benefit of future prospect at the rate of 50%, particularly when the deceased was in private employment.

d) The application of multiplier of 16 is on higher side.

5. Learned Advocate Smt. Anita Mategaonkar for the appellant-Insurance Company relied upon the following judgments:

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others, (2002) 6 SCC 281.

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur & Others, 2020 ACJ 2131.

6. Whereas learned Advocate Shri P.R. Agrawal supported the judgment and also the percentage of future prospect, multiplier and deduction for personal expenses granted by the Tribunal. In addition to that he prayed for grant of compensation due to loss of spousal and parental consortium. In support of that, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhate & Others, 2019(2) AIR Bom.R 590.

2. Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

3. The New Indian Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati & Others, 2020 ACJ 2321.

ACCIDENT AND NEGLIGENCE

7. Witness Sonali was not accompanied with her husband Vikram on the date of accident. Deceased on 4th November, 2007 was coming from Pune to Amravati by bus bearing Registration No.MH-34/ M-2101. When the bus came near Yashoda Nagar Square, Amravati, the bus driver gave a dash to the road divider, as a result of which, the door of the bus got opened and bus tilted towards conductor’s side. As a result of, the deceased came under the bus and died at the spot due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Whereas, according to Shankar Vishnu Ohal, witness for the owner, the bus was driven in a normal speed and the deceased was standing near the door of the bus. Due to darkness, the driver of the bus dashed the bus to the road divider in order to save one dog. Further story is not disputed.

8. Admittedly, both these witnesses are not the eye-witnesses. ASI Wankhede on 4th November, 2007 lodged the FIR against the bus driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and u