Smt. Suvarna wd/o Vijay Sathe & Ors. vs Arun Shankarrao Karpe & Ors.

. Heard Mr. Kunal Mirache, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. A. W. Paunikar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and Mr. Mohan M. Athawale, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The Appellants/Original Claimants have assailed the Judgment and order dated 1/12/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in MACP No. 228/2007.

The Claimants have preferred this Appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error by recording perverse finding that offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident and thereby exonerated the Insurance Company from the payment of compensation. Secondly, they also prayed for enhancement of compensation as same was not properly calculated on the basis of monthly income determined by the Claim Tribunal.

In the present Appeal, it is undisputed fact that the present Appellants are legal heirs of the deceased Vijay Sathe, who died in the motor accident dated 1/10/2007. It is the case of the Appellants before the Tribunal that deceased was the occupant in Maruti Van bearing registration No. MH-31/8433 which was going from Chandrapur-Jam. According to them, accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver who could not control his vehicle and thereby the Van was turned turtle, as a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

According to them, the deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident and doing mason work and earning Rs.4500/- per month. On the basis of this, they have claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Claim Tribunal.

The Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has contested the Claim Petition before the Tribunal on the ground that on the day of accident the vehicle was not insured with Respondent/Insurance Company. It is their submission that as per the record the date of accident was occurred on 1/10/2007 and the period of the insurance policy when it was purchased by the Respondent No.1 was for the period from 5/10/2007 to 23/2/2008. Hence, according to record of the Insurance Company, vehicle was not insured and thereby they are not responsible for payment of compensation.

In the light of this factual aspect, the learned Tribunal has decided the Claim Petition on the basis of oral as well as written submission made by the parties. From the findings of the Tribunal, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4500/- per month. It is also recorded by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was earlier owned by the Respondent No.1 and the same was soled by him to the Respondent No.2. At the time of accident, it was not insured and thereby exonerated Insurance Company from responsibility of payment of compensation.

Both the parties to substantiate their submissions, have relied upon the policies (Exhibit-41 and 34) i.e. during the period of ownership of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the offending vehicle. The perusal of policy (Exhibit-41) shows the period of validity of the policy from 24/2/2007 to 23/2/2008 and the policy (Exhibit-34) shows the period of validity of the policy from 5/10/2007 to 23/2/2008 and the date of accident was 1/10/2007. Hence, it is clear that during the validity period of policy, the accident was occurred. As such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal to exonerate the Insurance Company on the ground that vehicle was not insured, is the perverse and illegal finding.

In respect of enhancement of compensation, the finding of the learned Tribunal is specific on the point that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month, however, while doing calculation on the basis of this monthly income, it seems that the Tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier and conventional heads, on the basis of which the Claimants are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, in my view, considering the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company V/s Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Appellants are entitled to get compensation under the heads of future prospect, loss of estate, funeral charges, consortium etc. Hence, considering the entire heads, the entitlement of Appellants for enhancement of the claim is as under :

In my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, Appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.13,04,160/-. In the light of above observations, I proceed to pass following order.