AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
By this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara in MACP No. 30/2009.
The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 24.12.2008, the husband of respondent No.1 was hit by a Maruti Omni vehicle, while he was taking his morning walk. As a result of the accident, he suffered serious injuries and died. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.4 and was owned by respondent No.3.
On the basis of the aforesaid incident, an FIR was registered and respondent No.4 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent No.1 filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
(rupees five lakhs only) from respondent Nos.3 and 4 as also the appellant/ Insurance Company.
By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has held that notwithstanding the acquittal of respondent No.4 in the criminal proceedings initiated in respect of the said incident, the claim petition deserved to be allowed. The Tribunal found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- and on that basis, by applying deductions and multiplier and thereafter adding compensation under various heads, came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to payment of compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal as it has been held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error in appreciating the effect of acquittal of respondent No.4 in the criminal proceedings initiated in respect of the said incident, because the said respondent had denied the involvement of vehicle in the accident although it was admitted that at the time of accident, the said respondent was proceeding in the offending vehicle on the concerned road. It is further submitted that the calculation of monthly income by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises and that, therefore, there is an error in the total amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that in view of the latest Constitution Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited .v. Pranay Sethi and others (order dated 31.10.2017 passed in SLP (C) No. 25590 of 2014), compensation of the amount towards loss of consortium needs to be reduced.
On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Moharir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that merely because respondent No.4 was acquitted in criminal proceedings, it does not mean that the claim petition filed by the said respondents before the Tribunal could not be entertained on merits. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Ranu Bala Paul and others .v. Bani Chakraborty and others (reported in 1999 ACJ 634), which, in turn, places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. ( P) Ltd. .v. M. Karumai Ammal and others (reported in 1980 ACJ, 435).
Having considered the contentions of the rival parties, I find that the acquittal of respondent No4 in the criminal proceedings concerning the incident in question would not adversely affect the right of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to claim compensation before the Tribunal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal is justified in holding that when respondent No.4 admitted the fact that the offending vehicle, which he was driving, was actually driven through the road on which the incident took place, there was no reason to hold that the said vehicle was not involved in the incident. In any case, acquittal of respondent No.4 in criminal proceedings would not be beneficial to either respondent No.4 or the appellant to avoid liability in proceedings initiated under the provisions of the said Act while seeking compensation. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Ranu Bala Paul and others .v. Bani Chakraborty and others (cited supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. ( P) Ltd. .v. M.
Karumai Ammal and others (cited supra) is correct. Even otherwise the record shows that there was charge-sheet filed against respondent No.4 in respect of the said incident in which the number of offending vehicle was very much mentioned. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the presence of the vehicle at the time of incident was not established before the Tribunal.
As regards the issue of calculation of monthly income of the deceased, it has come on record that the deceased was running a shop in the name and style "Dipak Book Depot and General Stores" and respondent No.1 had deposed about the said fact in her evidence. She had also claimed that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month.
Although there was lack of documentary evidence to support the aforesaid claim of respondent No.1, the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be said to be of the mark or erroneous. Therefore, I do not find any error in the basis of calculation of compensation by the Tribunal.
There is no dispute as regards the deduction and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal because it is in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others .v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another (reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298).
In the latest Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited .v. Pranay Sethi and others (cited supra), it has been held that the compensation of Rs.40,000/- is payable for loss of consortium and that compensation under the head of funeral expenses has to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Tribunal is required to be modified and the amount granted under the aforesaid heads is to be reduced. Accordingly, the amount of compensation will stand reduced by a sum of Rs.70,000/-. As a result, the amount of compensation payable to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 comes to Rs. 5,87,000/-.
In the light of above, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.5,87,000/- along with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 12.02.2009. Since the appellant/Insurance Company had deposited the entire amount in terms of the impugned judgment and order in this Court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount as indicated above upon modification in terms of this order.
The balance amount shall be returned to the appellant/Insurance Company. The amount of costs deposited by the appellant, as directed by this Court while condoning the delay, is also directed to be disbursed to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.