Shri Bapu Saheb Bharamganda Patil and Ors. Vs Ibrahim Gulab Mujawar and Ors.

[1]

	IN	THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT	BOMBAY
		APPELLATE	SIDE
		FIRST APPEAL NO.425 OF	1997
1.		Bapusaheb Bharamgaunda	Patil
2.	Smt.	Smita w/o Bapusaheb	Patil
3.		Navin Bapusaheb	Patil
All		adult, r/o Girnar	Hill,
Hindwadi,	Belgaum.	.... Appellants
	-	Versus	-
1.		Ibrahim Gulab	Mujawar,
age		Major, Occ:	Driver,
r/o		Khandane, Taluka	Patan,
Dist:			Satara.
2.		Balasaheb Tukaram	Patil,
age		Major, Occ:	Agriculturist,
r/o		Khandane, Taluka	Patan,
Dist:			Satara.
3.		The New India	Assurance
Co.		Ltd., Karad	Branch,
Karad	, Satara.	.... Respondents
Shri	N.V.	Bandivadekar with Ms	Aradhan
Prabhu		for the	Appellants.
Shri	Rahul	S. Kate for the	Respondent
Nos.1		and	2.
		CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPAR	KAR &
		V.M. KANADE,	JJ.
		DATED: AUGUST 25,	2005
ORAL		JUDGMENT (Per V.M.Kanade,	J.):
1.	The	appellants are challenging the judgment	and
award	passed	by the Motor Accident Claims	Tribunal,

¶3

Satara to the extent of quantum of compensation granted

¶4

to the appellants.

¶5

[2]

¶6

2. The brief facts are as under:

¶7

3. On 16-2-199	0 the deceased Pravin Bapusaheb	Pat	il	who
was the pillion	rider on the motorcycle which	was		driven
by his friend	Ambewadikar met with an accident	as		the
said motorcycle	which was driven by his fri	end		collided
with a tract	or-trolly which was driven by		re	spondent
No.1. In that	accident Pravin, who was the	so	n	of
appellant Nos.1	and 2, expired. The appellants		file	d a
petition before th	e Motor Accident Claims Trib	unal		being
Petition No.287 of	1990 and they claimed comp	ensat	ion	of
Rs.17,62,000/- with	interest at the rate of	12%		per
annum from the	date of the petition till the	amo	unt	was
actually paid to	the claimants. The		res	pondents
contested the	claim by filing written statement.			In
order to subst	antiate their claim the		a	ppellants
examined appellant	No.1 as also the motorcycle			driver
Ambewadikar and	one income-tax inspector.			The

¶8

appellants also produced documentary evidence in support

¶9

of their claim.

¶10

4.	The	learned	Member, Motor Accident	Claims	Tribunal,
Satara,	partly	allowed	the petition a	nd	directed
respondent	Nos.1	to	3 to jointly pay an	am	ount of
Rs.1,55,000/-		as	compensation to the appe	llants	along
with inter	est at	the rate	of 12% per annum	from	the date
of	filing	of the	petition till the date	of	realisation.

¶11

[3]

¶12

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the

¶13

appellants have preferred the present appeal.

¶14

5.	Learned	coun	sel appearing on be	half of the
appellants	has	taken	us through the judg	ment and award
passed	by the	Tri	bunal as also the evid	ence adduced by
the	appellants	be	fore the Tribunal.	He has submitted
that	the Trib	unal	had erred in coming	to the conclusion
that	the amoun	t wh	ich was spent by the	deceased on the
appellants	was	Rs.1,0	00/- per month.	He further
submitted	that	the	Tribunal also erred i	n coming to the
conclusion	that	the	multiplier which was	applied to the
facts	and circ	umstance	s of the present case	was 10. He
submitted	that	the	amount which was	earned by the
deceased	Pravin	be	ing Rs.8,000/- per	month, at the
highest	1/3rd	of	the amount was liable	to be deducted
towards	his	own	personal expenses and	the balance 2/3rd
amount	ought	to	have been held to be	the amount which
was	spent on	th	e parents. In support	of the said
submission,	he	reli	ed on the judgment of	the Supreme
Court i	n the	case	of State of Maharashtr	a and another v.
Jasbir	Kaur	and	others, reported in (2003	) 7 SCC 484.
He	submitted	that	the fact that the	deceased was filing
return	has	been	established by examin	ing the income-tax
officer	who	has	stated in his evidence	that deceased
Pravin	had	filed	returns 5 years prior	to this death.
He	submitted	that	considering the ratio	of the judgment
in Jas	bir Kaur’	cas	e (supra), the multipli	er of 18 ought

¶15

[4]

¶16

to have been applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore the amount of compensation should have been awarded by applying the multiplier of 18 x 2666. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. He submitted that the appellants had not established by leading evidence that deceased Pravin was hale and hearty at the time when the accident took place. He further submitted that though the income-tax officer had been examined, no evidence had come on record to show that in the returns which were filed by the deceased, his income was Rs.8,000/per month. He submitted that the ratio on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the case of Jasbir Kaur would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and as it was distinguishable with the facts of the present case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others . Trilok Chandra and others, reported in 1996 ACJ 831. He submitted that the Supreme Court in the said case had laid down guidelines in respect of the formula which had to be applied for the purpose of arriving at the correct multiplier and that the Supreme Court had observed that the multiplier cannot in all the case be solely dependent on the age of the deceased and that the age of

¶17

[5]

¶18

the parents would also be relevant in the case where the deceased was a bachelor. He submitted that, therefore, the judgment and order of the Tribunal was liable to be confirmed.

¶19

6. It is	well-sett	led by a	catena of judgments of		the
Supreme Court	and	this Court	that three factors	have	to
be taken into	consi	deration while	arriving at the		method
which is	popularly	known as	the "Multiplier"		method.
The three f	actors	are that,	firstly, it has	to	be
determined what	wo	uld be the	life expectancy o	f	the
deceased; seco	ndly	the amount	which was spen	t	and
likely to be	spent	by the dece	ased on the depend	ants	has
to be	determined	and	thirdly the	unpon	derable
circumstances	such	as untim	ely death, other	li	abilities
and expenses	which	would be	incurred and the	ded	uctions
which would	have	been made	are also relevant		factors.
Essentially the	princ	iple behind	applying the	m	ultiplier
is that an	attempt	is made to	find out the amou	nt	of
purchases which	the	deceased wou	ld have made in	a	given
time so that	the	said amount	could be multiplied	by	the
number of y	ears	which the de	pendents would receive		the
purchase value o	r such	amount fro	m the deceased.	In	the
light of th	e	settled position	in law, the facts		and

¶20

circumstances of the present case will have to be taken into consideration.

¶21

The deceased admittedly was 23 years of age and was

¶22

[6]

¶23

a bachelor and	was work	ing with his father in the	family
business. The	appellant	No.1 in his evidence has	stated
that his son	used to	look after his business about	4-5
years earlier	to his d	eath and that he has 3-4 b	usiness
concern and	the deceased	Pravin was a partner in	those
firms. He	has stated	that he used to pay salary to	him
from one of	the com	panies, namely, Paston Agencies	and
he was retainer	in B.T.	Patil and Sons Pvt. Ltd.	He
further stated	that he	used to get his share in	the
profits of S.B	.P. and	Company. He has stated that	the
deceased was	an income	-tax payer and after the death	of
his son he	has paid	income-tax on his behalf. On	the
basis of the	income-tax	returns he has stated that	the
income of	his decease	d son was between Rs.90,000/-	to
Rs.1,00,000/- pe	r annum.	He has stated that Pravin	was
hale and h	earty. He	has also stated that his	father
died at the	age of	65 years and that his mother	was
still alive a	nd was abo	ut 84 years of age. Though	no
documents have	been	produced by this witness,	the
appellants hav	e examined	the income-tax officer who	has
produced the	income-tax	returns. The witness	No.3
Satyabhut K.	Raichukka	r has produced the copies of	the
returns submitted	by	Pravin for the years 1	987-88,
1988-89 and	1989-90	and also copies of the ass	essment
orders of the	year 1989-9	0 and 1990-91. The evidence	is
not seriously	challenged	by the respondents. Though	in
the cross-exa	mination ap	pellant No.1 has stated that	he
had no	documentary e	vidence to show that the d	eceased

¶24

[7]

¶25

was a	partne	r in	the firm	and	no d	ocument	has	been
placed	on	record t	o show	the	payment	of	income-tax	or
assessment	of	the	income	of	the	said	period,	this
documentary	eviden	ce has	been	pro	duced	on	record	through
the	income-tax	officer	witness	No.3.	In	our	view,	the
appellants	have	therefore	establi	shed	that	the	income	of

¶26

deceased Pravin was between Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-

¶27

per year.

¶28

8.	Th	e nex	t	question			which will have	to	be		c	onsidered
is	what	would		have b	e	e	n the life	expect	ancy	of		deceased
Pravin.		It	is	no d	o		ubt true that	there	is	a		solitary
statement		made	b	y a	p	p	ellant No.1 in	his	e	viden	ce	in
which	he	has	st	ated tha	t		Pravin was	hale	and	he	art	y and
he	has	stated	that	his	f	a	ther died at	the	age	of	6	5 and
his	mother	wa	s	alive and			was 84 years	of	ag	e.		Apart
from	that,	no	ot	her evid	e	n	ce has come	on	reco	rd	to	show
that	the	d	eceas	ed was			not suffering	from	an	y		ailment.
In	view	of	this	eviden	c	e	and consideri	ng	the	fact		that
the	father	of	appe	llant No	.	1	died at the	age	of	65	,	we
are	also	ta	king	judicial			notice of the	fac	t	that		the
life	expec	tancy	in	India			is between 60-	65	years	and		in
our	view	it	will	have			to be h	eld	that	t	he	life

¶29

expectancy of deceased Pravin will have to be fixed at

¶30

65 years.

¶31

The last question which will have to be considered is what was the amount which was spent by the deceased

¶32

[8]

¶33

on	his	parent	s and for	how	many	years the	ap	pellants
would	have	r	eceived the	benefi	t of t	he income or		the
expenditu	re,	the	amount of	mo	ney whic	h he would		have
spent	on t	he	appellants.	In	the	present case,	a	ppellant
No.1,	the	father	of the	deceas	ed, was	65 years of		age.
He	had,	ther	efore, practic	ally	reached	the age w	here	at
the	highest	he	could	have	received	money from		the
deceased	for		a period	of	5-10 yea	rs. The	a	ppellant
No.2,	mother	of	the deceased,	wa	s 50	years of age	at	the
time	when	t	he accident		took	place and	th	erefore
considerin	g	the	average li	fe	expectancy	she would		have
got	the	benefit	of the	inco	me of	the deceased f	or	a
period	of	15	years.	The	appellant	No.3 was major		and
was	earning		separately	and,	therefore,	there is		no
question	of		any amount	bei	ng spent	on appellant		No.3.
Taking	an	overall	view of	th	e matte	r and consideri	ng	the
peculiar	fa	cts	and circumst	ances	of th	e case, we	are	of
the	view	tha	t the Tribu	nal	erred in	holding that		the
multiplier	of		10 is	applic	able to	the present		case.
Since	we	have	held tha	t t	he dece	ased’s life	exp	ectancy
was	65	years	and the m	other	was 50	years of age	,	she
would	have	got	the benefit	of	part	of the income	of	the
deceased	for	a	period	of	15-18	years. If		certain
imponder	able		circumstances	ar	e tak	en into c	onsid	eration
such	as	the	sickness,	liab	ilities a	nd loss in	b	usiness,
a	period	of	three years	will	have	to be deducted		from
the	period	of	18 years	and	therefore,	in our view,		the
correct	multi	plier	would be	15	and no	t 10. So fa	r	as

¶34

[9]

¶35

the question	of	the amount which was spent by	the
deceased on	the	dependants is concerned, in our	view,
the Tribunal	has	correctly assessed the evidence	on
record and	has held	that the amount which was spent	by
the deceased	was	not more than Rs.1,000/- per	month.
Firstly, the	appell	ants have not led any evidence	in
support of	this p	articular fact that he had spent	more
amount.	In fact,	there is no evidence to suggest	what
was the a	mount tha	t was spent by the deceased. In	view
of this, w	e do	not feel that it is necessary	to
interfere with	the f	inding arrived at by the Tribunal	in
respect of	the	calculation of the amount spent by	the
deceased on	the	appellants. Thus, in our view,	the
multiplier of	15 is	taken to be the multiplier and i	f an
amount of	Rs.1,000	/- p.m. is multiplied, then	the
appellants will	be	entitled to get an amount	of
Rs.1,70,000/-	i.e.	1000 x 12 x 15 instead	of
Rs.1,20,000/-,	as ha	s been arrived at by the	Tribunal.
So far	as the	judgment on which reliance is placed	by
the learned	counsel	on behalf of the appellants	is
concerned, i	n our	view, the ratio of the said j	udgment
cannot be	applied	to the facts of the present case.	In
the said ca	se, the	deceased was an agriculturist and	his
income was	estimated	to be Rs.4,500/- per month and	on
that basis	the	monthly income was fixed at R	s.3,000/-
after deducting	Rs.1,5	00/- for personal expenditure.	In
the light	of thes	e facts, the Supreme Court had	arrived
at the m	ultiplier	of 18. In the present case	the

¶36

[10]

¶37

deceased	was	a	busin	essman	and	appellant	No.1	was	the
earning	member	and	the	head	of the	H.U.F	.	There	was no
occasion	for	the	deceas	ed to	spent	more	money	on	his
family	as	their	needs	were	taken	care	of	by	appellant

¶38

No.1. The ratio of the said judgment will not be

¶39

applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶40

The Tribunal, in our view, has without taking into consideration the three factors which are normally

¶41

considered arrived at the multiplier of 10 and therefore

¶42

the said observations and findings are set aside.

¶43

11. In	the	res	ult, the	appeal is	partly	allow	ed.	The
rest of	the	find	ings	of the	App	ellate	Court	are
confirmed	and		the	compensation	is	accordi	ngly	increased
from Rs.1	,20,000	/-	to	Rs.1,70,0	00/-.		The	other
components	of	the	compen	sation which	are	arrive	d at	by
the Tribunal		are	confirm	ed. The	appeal	is	allowed	in
the above	term	s.	In	the circumsta	nces,	there	shall	be
no order	as	to	costs.	The appel	lants	will	be	entitled
to get i	nterest		at the	rate of 10%	o	n	the	enhanced

¶44

amount from the date of filing of the claim till

¶45

realisation.

¶46

(V.M. Kanade, J.)

¶47

(R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.)

Shri Bapu Saheb Bharamganda Patil and Ors. v. Ibrahim Gulab Mujawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bapu Saheb Bharamganda Patil and Ors. v. Ibrahim Gulab Mujawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vijay Inamdar Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Bapu Saheb Bharamganda Patil and Ors. Vs Ibrahim Gulab Mujawar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S Kantilal and Vinodlal

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S Kantilal and Vinodlal