The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shamshabdi Nisarahmad Khan And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1395 OF 2016 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Siddivinayak Compex, Near Tata Petrol Pump,Miraj Road, Sangli.
} } } ...Appellant
Versus
1. Smt.Shamshadbi Nisarahmad Khan Age-32, Occ : Household } } by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date:
2025.03.04 10:20:47 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE
2. Kum Nasir Nisarahmad Khan Age-13 years, Occ: Education } }
3. Kum Yasir Nisarahmad Khan Age-10 years, Occ : Education } }
4. Kum Shahid Nisarahmad Khan Age-8 years, Occ: Education } }
5. Kum Asiya Nisarahmad Khan Age-3 years, Occ: Nil } }
6. Smt.Haseena Fajlorahiman Khan Age-59 years, Occ : Houshold All are R/at Abilyanagar, Vijaynagar, Kupwad, Tal-Miraj, District-Sangli } } } }
7. Shri.Dattatraya Vyankusa Jituri Age-Major, Occ: Tanker Owner R/o 416/1, Utkarsh Bunglow, Mukundnagar, Pune } } } } ....Respondents N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5
---- Mr.Shrikant M. Dange, for the Appellant.
Mr.Sachin Hande, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
---- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st JANUARY 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- .
The issues involved in this Appeal are that, wrong application of multiplier and compensation is given on higher side under other heads.
2.
It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. At the time of the accident deceased was 34 years old. So multiplier should be 16. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has awarded amount under the head of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate on higher side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. 3.
It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant that, the Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it. Hence requested to dismiss the Appeal.
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5
4.
I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short), Sangli.
5.
At the time of the accident the deceased was 34 years old. The proper multiplier is 16. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17, which is erroneous, hence I am considering multiplier of 16. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount around Rs.5 lakhs it is on higher side. As per view of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram1, each claimant is entitled for Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate. Considering this calculation the Claimants are entitled for following compensation. Particulars Amount Monthly Income Rs.10,000.00 (+) Future Prospects (50%) Rs.5,000.00 Annual Income After Future Prospects Rs.15,000.00 (-) Personal Expenses (1/4th amount) Rs.3,750.00 Rs.11,250.00 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5
Net Annual Loss of Income Rs.1,35,000.00 Multiplier 16 Loss of future income Rs.21,60,000.00 Consortium (Rs.48,000 x 6) Rs.2,88,000.00 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000.00 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000.00 Total Just Compensation Payable Rs.24,84,000.00 Tribunal Awarded Rs.28,70,000.00 Excess Amount Rs.3,86,000.00 6.
The excess amount is of Rs.3,86,000/-, the Appellant is entitled for this amount.
7.
In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,86,000/- with proportionate interest fixed by the Tribunal from the deposited amount.
(iii) The Repondent's-Claimant's are permitted to withdraw remaining amount with proportionate interest.
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5
(iv) The statutory amount alongwith interest be transferred to the Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules.
(v) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
(vi) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5