1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2006

WITH

CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 25 OF 2007

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

1732, 1^st floor, Ramdev Galli,

Belgaum, 590 002.

.... Appellant

V/s

1. Mrs. Samira Fernandes,

major, residing at Polvado,

St. Estevam, Ilhas, Goa.

2. Miss Shawnicka Grace Fernandes,

minor aged 7 years.

3. Master Nevin Anthony Fernandes,

aged 5 years.

Both represented herein by their mother

and the natural guardian, the above named

Respondent No.1 Mrs. Samira Fernandes.

[4. Shri Nagraj Nagappa Pujar,

major, resident of Haveri Madhur,

Karnataka State.]

..... deleted

[5. Shri Umakant F. Mayekar,

r/o. 186, Patil Galli, Khasbag, Belgaum.]..... deleted

.... Respondents

Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondents/Cross Objectors.

CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE &

N.A. BRITTO, JJ.

DATE : 2 ^nd DECEMBER, 2008.

2

JUDGMENT: (Per N.A. BRITTO, J.)

The dispute between the parties is as regards the quantum of

compensation awarded to the claimants (respondents no. 1 to 3 herein) as

against a claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-.

2.

The learned MACT (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) has awarded

compensation of Rs. 21,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on

a sum of Rs. 3,48,896/- (excluding future loss of dependency) from the date

of the petition till the entire amount is paid.

3.

The accident took place on 6/12/2001 between a scooter driven by the

deceased and truck no. KA 213/498 driven by respondent no.4, owned by

respondent no.5 and insured with the appellant herein, who was respondent

no.3, in the claim petition.

4.

The claim petition was filed by the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 3)

who are the widow and children of the deceased Savio Nigel Fernandes.

Claimant no.1 was 32 years of age, claimant no.2 was 4 years of age, and

claimant no.3 was 2 years of age.

5.

The deceased was 32 years of age. The deceased was working as a

Junior Manager in the Production Department of the German Remedies Ltd.

3

To prove the income of the deceased the claimants had examined the Senior

Manager in the Department of Personnel Administration of the said Company

and who had given the details of the salary drawn by the deceased. He had

categorically stated that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,37,627/-

per year and in addition, the deceased was getting medical reimbursement of

Rs. 6,250/- and that he was given average raise of 20.59% in the salary for

the year 2001-2002. He had also stated that the deceased was earning a basic

pay of Rs. 9,950/- and was getting HRA of Rs. 1,990/-, educational

allowance of Rs. 600/- and conveyance allowance of Rs. 1,100/-, thus a total

amount of Rs. 13,640/- per month besides Rs. 14,925/- as LTA and Rs.

20,000/- as bonus per year. He had produced the certificate issued by the

Company at Exhibit 44.

6.

Nevertheless, the learned MACT came to the conclusion that the

deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 18,965/- including conveyance

allowance and further held that conveyance allowance could not be

considered for the purpose of computing compensation. The learned MACT

therefore considered monthly income of deceased as Rs. 15,792/- and then

deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and taking the multiplier of 17,

worked out the loss of dependency at Rs. 21,47,712/-. The learned MACT

awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards

funeral expenses, Rs. 2,000/- for transport and other miscellaneous expenses

4

and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of an estate and thus awarded a compensation of

Rs.21,60,000/-.

7.

Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has

submitted that the learned MACT was right in excluding the conveyance

allowance and in case the said allowance was deducted and then another 1/3^rd

was