Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mangal Gana Jambekar

R.K. Deshpande, J.—The point for determination in the present appeal is as under:

"While applying the multiplier in the IInd Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court should be guided by the age of the deceased or by the age of the dependents or claimants, whichever is higher?"

Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the decisions of this Court rendered by Shri S.B. Shukre, J. in the cases of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naina, Chandramohan, Jaidev and M/s. D.P. Jain and Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shrawanji and Others, He submits that the learned Single Judge has taken a view in these two decisions that the selection of multiplier is based upon the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependents and that the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. This view taken is based upon the observations of the Apex Court in para 17 of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, which is not the ratio of the said decision but it is merely a obiter.

Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the contrary, it is the consistent view taken by the Apex Court that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher. He has referred to the decision of three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, This view is consistently followed by the Apex Court in several decisions including the decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and the decision of the another learned Single Judge of this Court (Shri A.P. Bhangale, J.) in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nanubai, Shekhar and Abdul Rauf, In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of Shri Bhangale, J., the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma has been relied upon.

In view of the aforesaid position of law brought to the notice of this Court, it is apparent that there is conflict of views between the decisions of two learned Single Judges; one in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shrawanji and Ors.,(supra) delivered by Shri S.B. Shukre, J. and another in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanubai wd/o Lomeshwar Tamgadge and Ors., (supra) by Shri A.P. Bhangale, J. No doubt that in the decision rendered by Shri S.B. Shukre, J. in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shrawanji and Ors., (supra), the decision of Shri A.P. Bhangale, J. in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanubai wd/o Lomeshwar Tamgadge, (supra) has been taken into consideration, but it has been held that the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company and Ors., (supra) is later in point of time and, therefore, needs to be followed.

Prima facie, in paragraph 17 of the decision in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company and Ors., (supra), cannot be construed to be the ratio of the decision, particularly when the consistent contrary view of the Apex Court directly on the point is available in other cases more particularly the case in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (supra) decided by the larger Bench. In view of this, the question framed in para 1 of this order, needs to be decided by a larger Bench. The matter be placed before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the issue framed in this appeal. The decision of the Tribunal on the other points shall be dealt with subsequent to the answer to the question, which has been framed for reference.