Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J
Sangita Sudhakar Turke – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.O. Ahmed
For the Respondents: Shri D.N. Kukday, Shri P.P. Nagpure
The court determined that actual income must be prioritized over notional estimates for compensation, establishing standards for future prospects and deductions.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal filed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal - The Tribunal assessed loss of dependency based on notional income instead of actual earnings stated by the Claimants - It was held that the Tribunal should consider actual evidence unless reliable contrary evidence exists. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 15)
(B) Compensation - Guidelines for determining just compensation - Appropriate deductions for personal and living expenses, and addition for future prospects according to the established guidelines from Apex Court cases. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The Claimants challenged the compensation awarded for Sudhakar Turke's death in a vehicular accident, claiming full documented earnings of Rs.6000/month. Respondents disputed the claims based on lack of documentary evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Tribunal's assessment unjust and ordered enhancement of compensation to Rs.14,00,000/- including additional claims.
Issues: Whether the awarded compensation was just and accurately reflected actual income of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that reliance on employer testimony without documentary evidence was justified and highlighted Apex Court guidelines for compensation calculation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and initial compensation claims. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 2. respondents contested basis and evidence for claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence standards and existing case law. (Para 9 , 14) |
| 4. guidelines for just compensation recognized by the court. (Para 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. guidelines for fair compensation calculations upheld. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 6. court's recalculated compensation based on principles established. (Para 16) |
| 7. final ruling granting enhanced compensation. (Para 17 , 18) |
2. The Appellants shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimants and the Respondent shall be referred to as ‘Insurance Company’.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants-Claimants and learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company. ADMIT.
4. The Claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Sudhakar Turke who expired in a motor vehicular accident on 22/04/2014 involving Tipper truck bearing registration No. MH-34-AB- 1406. It was the case of the Claimants that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck. The Claimants stated that the deceased was 30 years of age and he was working at Ganesh Medical Stores, Rajura and earning monthly salary of Rs.6000/-. The Claimants, therefore, filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Insurance Company.
5. The Respondent had denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck . The Respondent further took a defence that the raised plea is of contributory negligence and also denied that the Claimants were entitled for any compensation as claimed.
6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased has 32 years. The Tribunal did not rely upon the salary certificate produced by the Claimants and computed loss of dependency, on the basis of notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal deducted ¼ of amount, towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16 assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,87,000/-.
7. Shri S.O.Ahmed, learned counsel for the Claimants, submits that the salary certificate visa-a-viz the evidence of P.W.2 Gopal Sarda amply proves that the deceased was employed at the Ganesh Medical Stores and that he was drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not adding any amount towards future prospect and further in not awarding compensation towards loss of estate and any compensation to the Claimants Nos.2, 3 and 4 towards loss of parental consortium and filial consortium. He therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, needs to be enhanced.
8. Shri D.N.Kukday, learned counsel for the Respondent– Insurance company submits that apart from producing the salary certificate, the Claimants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was employed at the Ganesh Medical Stores and that he was drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He submits that P.W.2 Gopal Sarda had not produced attendance register or any other document to prove that the deceased was employed at the medical stores. He therefore, justifies assessment of loss of dependency on the basis of notional income.
9. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties.
10. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be considered to be a ‘just’ compensation.
11. It may be mentioned that in the case of National
