Partly allowed

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Lmanager v. Dilip Rambhau Kamble and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2012FA/2028/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Single Judge held that the multiplier based on the deceased's age was correct but modified the deduction for personal expenses to half, resulting in a final award of Rs. 3,50,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed. The compensation was modified to Rs. 3,50,000 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 fa 2028.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2028 OF 2012

¶4

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Aurangabad through its Divisional Manager, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. .. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dilip S/o Rambhau Kamble, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Labour, R/o Dhoregaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶7

Dwarkabai W/o Dilip Kamble, Age : 49 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o As above.

¶8

Pradeep S/o Dilip Kamble, Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o As above.

¶9

Dinkar S/o Mhatarba Jejurkar, Age : Major, Occu. : Driver, R/o Mamdapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶10

Mohammad Taquiddin S/o Mohammad Safuddin, Age : Major, Occu. : Owner,

¶11

2 fa 2028.12

¶12

R/o Lohar Galli, Beed.

¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through it's Divisional Manager, Near Gopal Cultural Hall, Osmanpura, Aurangabad.

¶14

Atul S/o Dnyandeo Yenare, Age : Major, Occu. : Driver, R/o Walki, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶15

Ramdas S/o Shriram Sangle, Age : Major, Occu. : Owner, R/o 16/3, Nagapur, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents

¶16

Shri S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri G. J. Pahilwan, Advocate h/f Shri R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶17

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2012.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. The Insurance Company impugns the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of quantum.

¶20

Shri Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel submits that the

¶21

3 fa 2028.12

¶22

age of the claimants at the time of filing claim petition was 48 and 45 years respectively. The multiplier at the most which could be applied is 12. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 18.

¶23

The learned counsel further contends that the deceased was bachelor and the claimants are age-old parents. The deduction towards personal expenses should have been half instead of 1/3rd as has been arrived at by the Tribunal. It is not the case that the deceased was the only son of the claimants. The claimants also have another son named Pradeep.

¶24

The learned counsel for the claimants supports the order and submits that the multiplier keeping the age of the deceased in mind has to be considered and not the age of the claimants. The learned counsel further submits that the claimants were dependent upon the deceased and he was the only son contributing towards the household expenses. The tribunal has rightly considered the same.

¶25

With regard to applicability of multiplier, the Apex Court has held that, age of the deceased would be relevant while

¶26

4 fa 2028.12

¶27

considering the multiplier. In view of that, considering the age of the deceased, I hold that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was legal and correct. There is no need to interfere in the multiplier applied by the Tribunal.

¶28

With regard to the deduction towards personal expenses, it would be seen that the deceased was bachelor. The claimants are only two. In such a case, the half deduction towards personal expenses would be relevant as has been held by the Apex Court in a case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.

¶29

In the light of above, the order of the quantum of compensation is required to be modified. If the deduction is made half towards the personal expenses, then the claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- for the loss of earning. The claimants would also be entitled for compensation on other heads such as love and affection and funeral expenses. I award Rs. 26,000/- towards the same. As such, the claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty thousands only).

¶30

5 fa 2028.12

¶31

In the light of the above, the impugned award is quashed and modified. The claimants are held entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty thousands only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The original opponents i. e. present appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty thousands only) to the claimants i. e. present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶32

The amount deposited by the appellant herein is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants. The respondent No. 6 has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- which amount the claimants have already withdrawn and the said judgment is not assailed by the respondent No. 6. The appellant shall deposit the remaining amount as per the judgment passed by this Court. The claimants are allowed to withdraw the remaining amount after deducting the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- withdrawn and deposited by the respondent No. 6.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶35

bsb/Dec. 12

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Lmanager v. Dilip Rambhau Kamble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Lmanager v. Dilip Rambhau Kamble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagir Chunnumiya Deshmukh Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Parubai Ankush Rathod Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Parubai Ankush Rathod Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smita Wd/O Ravindra Fursule and Ors.