Allowed

Suryakant Narayan Velankar v. Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2009FA/405/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a civil appeal, examined the calculation of compensation for death due to a motor accident. It held that while the Tribunal's deduction of 50% for personal expenses was correct, the multiplier of 10 was erroneous. Applying the multiplier of 13 based on the age of the father of the deceased as per the Sarla Varma decision, the Court awarded additional compensation of Rs.28,800/-

What did the court decide?

Appellants entitled to additional compensation of Rs.28,800/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the respondents.

Suryakant Narayan Velankar Vs Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.405 OF 1997

¶5

Suryakant Narayan Velankar and others Appellants versus Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and others Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vivek Salunke with M.V.Rawool i/by Prafulla Shah for appellants. Mr.Vishwajit N. Sagare for respondent no.3.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶8

DATE : 09th December 2009

¶9

JUDGEMENT :-

¶10

The appellants are the claimants in a claim petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959. The claim for compensation is made on account of death of the son of the first and second appellants in a motor accident held on 27th January 1989. The 4th and 5th appellants are the brothers of the deceased. The third appellant is the sister and the 6th appellant is the grand-mother of the deceased. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellants were not fully dependent on the income of the deceased. By calculating the dependency at Rs.800/-, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 10. Thereafter granted additional compensation of Rs.4,000/-. That is how the total compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh was arrived at.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,800/- per month. He submitted that the dependency taken at Rs.800/- per month is

¶12

¶13

extremely on the lower side. He submitted that the multiplier ought to have been 17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgement and award by pointing out that there is no evidence as regards income of the deceased.

¶14

I have carefully considered the submissions. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009)6-SCC-121] and in particular paragraph 31 thereof, deduction of 50% will have to be made from the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses. In the present case, though witnesses have come out with the case that income of the deceased was Rs.1,800/- per month, the same has not been substantiated by producing documentary evidence on record. Therefore, even if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.1,600/- per month, the dependency @ Rs.800/- per month taken by the Tribunal is correct in the light of the aforesaid decision.

¶15

It is true that the decision in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) lays down multiplier to be used in case of various age groups.

¶16

It will be necessary to advert to a decision of the Apex Court in case of the Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. K.I.Bindu and others ([2005]8-SCC-473). In paragraph 14 of the said decision the Apex Court has held thus :-

¶17

"14. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." (Underline

¶18

¶19

supplied)

¶20

Therefore, while applying the multiplier on the basis of the decision in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), the age of father of the deceased will have to be taken into consideration inasmuch as the age of the deceased was much less than the age of the dependents. The age of the first appellant is disclosed as 50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), the multiplier of 13 will have to be applied by taking dependency of Rs.800/- per month. If multiplier of 13 is applied the total amount will be Rs.1,24,800/-. The Tribunal awarded additional amount of Rs.4,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Therefore, the total amount payable will be Rs. 1,28,800/-. Thus, in addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned award, the appellants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.28,800/-. Interest on the said amount will have to be fixed @ 7.5% p.a..

¶21

Hence, I pass following order :-

¶22

(A) In addition to the amount granted under the impugned judgement and award towards compensation, the appellants will be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.28,800/- from the respondents together with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. from 17th July 1989 till the deposit of the said amount with the Tribunal;

¶23

(B) The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the appeal;

¶24

(C) Time of four months is granted to the third respondent to comply with the award by depositing the necessary amount with the Tribunal;

¶25

(D) After the amount is deposited, the Tribunal will pass appropriate order for disbursement/withdrawal after hearing the parties;

¶26

(E) Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Tribunal.

¶27

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Suryakant Narayan Velankar v. Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant Narayan Velankar v. Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Chandraprakash Kisan Waghmare. Vs M/S Airman Transport and Anr.

Mushtaq S.Kathawala and Anr. Vs JENNIFER5 Biren Panchal andANR.

Bayer (Indaia) Ltd. Vs Devi Pesticides Pvt.Ltd.

Rakesh R.Mehta Vs Vijay P.Kachalia

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.