Shri. Bhika Bhau Vitthal Raskar and Ors. v. the Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2020CAF/2656/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench held that the MACT's award of 50% for future prospects in a motor accident mortality case contravened the Constitution Bench directive in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi for self-employed persons under 40, limiting it to 40%. The award was recalculated accordingly, the appeal modified, and the stay deposit transferred to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Quantum of compensation modified from Rs. 40,04,600 to Rs. 37,51,992 based on 40% future prospects; stay deposit transferred to MACT.

Shri. Bhika Bhau Vitthal Raskar and Ors. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/6 19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2656 of 2019 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2019

¶5

Bhikabhau Vitthal Raskar & ors .. Applicants Versus Reliance GIC Ltd and anr .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Pritesh Bohade for the applicant in CA No. 2656 of 2019. Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture for the respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 of 2019

¶9

Reliance GIC Ltd and anr .. Appellants Versus Bhikabhau Vitthal Raskar & ors .. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Rahul Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture for the appellants Mr.Pritesh Bohade for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 11^th MARCH 2020

¶12

P.C:-

¶13

1 Civil Application No.2656 of 2019 is taken out in the First Appeal which seek withdrawal of the amount deposited in terms of the order passed by this Court as a pre-condition for Tilak

¶14

2/6 19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶15

grant of stay. While hearing the Civil Application, the learned counsel for the respective parties submit that since a limited issue is involved in the First Appeal and since the Appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, which according to the insurance company is not based on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court is the limited point involved. Resultantly, the respective counsel argue the Appeal on merits instead of pressing the Civil Application.

¶16

2 The First Appeal is instituted challenging the judgment dated 3^rd April 2018 by the MACT, Niphad and the Appeal is primarily premised on the ground that while awarding the compensation the judgment of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi delivered on 31^st October 2017 which is the last word as regards the compensation to be awarded in case of a self employed or a fixed salary personnel has been totally ignored. Apart from this point raised in the Appeal, a brief argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the judgment is also erroneous since it has fastened the sole liability of negligence upon the driver of the insured vehicle and that the judgment and award do not take into consideration the evidence brought on record.

¶17

Tilak

¶18

3/6 19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶19

3 With the assistance of the respective counsel, perused the impugned judgment which deals with a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. One crore on account of the death of one Mahesh B. Raskar, aged 35 years in a Motor vehicle accident which occurred on 7^th February 2015. On the issue being framed whether the death of the deceased was on account of a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-18-AU-9215 by its driver, the said issue is answered in the affirmative. When it comes to the calculation of the amount of compensation to be paid, the Tribunal relied on the Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Taking into account the net annual income to be Rs.2,38,511/- on an average of two years which was rounded off to Rs.2,10,535/-, considering his age to be in the range of 35-40 years, the Court has added 50% towards his future prospects. Calculating the total income as Rs.3,15,800/- with four dependents in the family, the total compensation payable was computed as Rs.40,04,600/-. The entire calculation proceed and take into consideration the future prospect to be 50%.

¶20

4 On perusal of the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph no.61 has culled out its conclusions and direction no. (iv) stipulate the determination of the compensation to be payable to the deceased who was self employed or on a fixed

¶21

Tilak

¶22

4/6 19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶23

salary and it has been computed to be in addition of 40% of the established income where the deceased was below 40 years. The direction (iv) reads thus :-

¶24

“(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 y ears. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

¶25

6 In light of the said judgment which is even binding on the Tribunal, the computation and consideration of the 50% of amount towards future prospect cannot be sustained. Taking into consideration the directives issued by the Constitution Bench, it cannot exceed 40% and if this amount is so computed, by taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased in terms of the judgment to be Rs.2,10,535/- and calculating the 40% loss of income regarding the future prospects, the deceased being self employed, the amount which would be arrived at would be Rs.84,214/-. The total of the said calculation would be Rs.2,94,749/- applying the multiplier of 16 and the deduction to the extent of one fourth of his total income towards personal expenses to be Rs.73,687/-, the amount arrived at would be Tilak

¶26

5/6 19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶27

Rs.35,36,992/- . The remaining amount awarded i.e. towards loss of love and affection being Rs.two lakhs and the other misc expenses funeral for Rs.15,000/-, the amount due and payable would be Rs.37,51,992/- instead of the amount of Rs.40,04,600/-

¶28

7 The Insurance Company being aggrieved to the limited extent of the quantum of compensation awarded, by taking into consideration the amount as directed by the Apex Court to be 40% of the loss of income regarding the future prospects in case of a self employed person, the award which do not take into consideration the said factum and proceeds on a footing that it is 50% of the loss of income towards future prospects has computed the amount of compensation. This being the primary ground of challenge by the Insurance Company, the judgment and award by the MACT dated 3^rd April 2018 is required to be quashed and set aside to that extent and the Appeal deserves to be allowed by calculating the compensation by taking into account directive no.(iv) of the Constitution Bench judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶29

8 As far as other challenge to the award is concerned, I do not find that it warrant any consideration on account of the clear cut finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the relevant facts placed before it and the ground in the Appeal to that extent cannot be taken into consideration.

¶30

Tilak

¶31

19 CAF 2656-19.doc

¶32

9 Resultantly, the impugned judgment stands modified to the extent of the responsibility being fastened to the tune of Rs.40,04,600/- based on the calculation of 50% of loss of income and modified to the tune of fastening the liability of Rs.37,51,992/- jointly and severally to be paid by appellant and respondent no.5 towards towards compensation, the other factors including the interest directed to be paid remaining unchanged.

¶33

10 The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court as a pre-condition for entertaining the First Appeal is directed to be transferred to the MACT, Niphad, to be adjusted towards the amount of claim. (to be paid by the appellant and respondent no.5 in the First Appeal)

¶34

11 In view of disposal of First Appeal, Civil Application No. 2656 of 2019 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶36

Tilak

Shri. Bhika Bhau Vitthal Raskar and Ors. v. the Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhika Bhau Vitthal Raskar and Ors. v. the Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Pravin Yashwant Kate Vs Kiran Pravin Kate

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Smt. Rutuja Sudhir Chavan

Mr. Tahir Mohd.Hussain Vs Mr. Mohammed Zakir Hussein

Najmuddin Tajammul Shaikh Vs Naimuddin Tajammul Shaikh and Anr.

M/S.Kestral Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs Shri.Anthony Gaspal Dunga and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra.Thr.the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vs Shri.Kamlya Narayan Keni.Deceased THR.LRS.1/1.SMT.BUGANBAI Kamlya Keni. and Ors.