Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Legal Manager, Mr. Satpalsingh Rajput v. Smt. Kajal Babasaheb Jadhav And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1159 OF 2018 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Thr. Legal Manager, Mr.Satpalsingh Rajput Office No.106, Road No.22, Lodha Suprumus-2, Wagle Estate, Near New Passport Office, Thane-West-400 604.

Maharashtra Thr. Legal Manager Mr.Satpalsingh Rajput } } } } } } } Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date:

2024.06.03 14:57:03 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE (Org. Opposite Party No.1) ...Appellant

Versus

1. Smt.Kajal Babasaheb Jadhav Age-21 years, Occ: Household } } Org. P.No.1

2. Kum.Yash Babasaheb Jadhav Age-2 and 1/2 years, Occ: Nil } } Org. P.No.2

3. Kum.Omkar Babashaeb Jadhav Age-1 month, Occ: Nil } } Opp P.No.3

4. Aruna Dadaso Jadhav Age-46, Occ: Household } } Opp.P.No.4 R.No.5 deleted as per order dt.10/7/23 and 28/06/21 (Org. P.No.5)

5. Dadaso Bhagwan Jadhav Age-52, Occ : Nil } } } } Applicant No.1 is guardian of Minor Applicant No.2 and 3 All R/at Behind Gram Panchayat office, Ankali, Taluka-Miraj, District-Sangli } } } } N.S. Kamble page 1 of 6

6. Shri.Suraj Bhart Tarate Age-40 years, Occ : Business R/at Dhamani Nagar, Laxmi Peth, Solapur, District-Solapur.

} } } } Org. Opposite Party No.1

7. Mr.Dattatraya Babu Bandgar Age-40 years, Occ: Truck Driver R/at Andhalgaon, Taluka Mangalvedha, District-Solapur.

} } } } ....Respondents ---- Mr.Nikhil Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture, for the Appellant. Mr.Kuldeep Nikam a/w Mr.Prasad Avhad, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

---- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 10th MAY 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT :- .

The issue involved in this Appeal is income of the deceased is considered on higher side.

2.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month without any evidence on record, which is on higher side and on that basis compensation is awarded, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 6

3.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant that, the deceased was working as labourer in bricks factory and he was getting Rs.600/- per day. But the Tribunal has considered his monthly income at Rs.12,000/-, which is proper. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side, it be awarded and requested to dismiss the Appeal.

4.

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short), Sangli.

5.

To prove the income of the deceased the Claimant No.1 Kajal Jadhav widow of deceased examined herself. She has stated that deceased was working as labourer in bricks factory of Umesh Kumbhar and he was getting Rs.600/- per day. In support of evidence of PW-1, the Claimant's have examined PW2 Umesh Kumbhar at Exhibit-41, owner of the factory. He has stated that the deceased was working as labour in his factory and he was paying him Rs.600/- per day. The Salary Certificate is at N.S. Kamble page 3 of 6

Exhibit-42. He further stated that in off season he used to pay Rs.300/- per day as wages to the deceased. Nothing elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered Rs.400/- per day as labour wages and considered Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. In my view, it is on little higher side. Hence I am considering Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Claimants are also entitled for 30% future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount of Rs.60,000/-. In my view, it is on lower 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. There are four claimants, total comes to Rs.2,28,000/-. In view of above, the Claimants are entitled for following compensation.

Annul income (Rs.10,000/- X 12) Rs.1,20,000/- Multiplier X 17 Rs.20,40,000/- Less 3⁄4 for personal expenses Rs.5,10,000/- Total amount Rs.15,30,000/- 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) N.S. Kamble page 4 of 6

Add:30% future prospects Rs.4,59,000/- Consortium amount (Rs.48,000/- X 4) Rs.1,92,000/- Loss of estate Rs.18,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Total amount Rs.22,17,000/- The Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,46,800/-, if Rs.22,17,000/- considered by this Court is deducted from it, it comes to Rs.2,69,800/-. This is an excess amount. The Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled for it. 6.

In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw excess amount of Rs.2,69,800/- with proportionate interest, out of the deposited amount, the Claimant's are permitted to withdraw balance amount along with proportionate interest.

(iii) The statutory amount along with interest be transferred to the Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to N.S. Kamble page 5 of 6

withdraw it, as per Rules.

(iv) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 6 of 6