Partly allowed

Mrs. Anjali Vilas Deshpande and Ors. v. Mrs. Prabha Rajendra Gupta and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2022FA/17/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the MCAT's compensation calculation. It held that Form 16 is authentic evidence of the deceased's income and credited higher remuneration. The Court enhanced the award to approximately Rs 2.79 crore, including increased loss of consortium for dependents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs 2,78,76,708/-. Judgment of MCAT modified to reflect higher income evidence and revised conventional heads with 10% enhancement.

Mrs. Anjali Vilas Deshpande and Ors. Vs Mrs. Prabha… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶2

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶3

rrpillai

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2022

¶5

`1. Anjali Vilas Deshpande` `Age : 48 years, Occu: Housewife`
`2. Shubhankar Vilas` `Deshpande` `Age : 22 years, Occu : Student`
`3. Amruta Vilas Deshpande @` `Amruta Mukund Fadke` `Age : 20 years, Occu : Student`
`4. Abhishek Vilas Deshpande` `Age : 20 years, Occu : Student`
`5. Ramkumar Maharudra` `Deshpande` `Age : 74 years, Occu : Nil`
`6. Rajani Ramkumar` `Deshpande` `Age : 74 years, Occu : Household` `All are R/at Flat No. 3, B-79, Shrirang` `Unit 16, Shrirang Soc., Thane 400601`	`…Appellants` `(Orig. claimants)`
`~ versus ~`
`1.` ^{Prabha Rajendra Gupta} `R/At 12, Mukund Apt., Manpada Rd,` `Dombivli (E), Dist.` `Thane`
`2.` ^{Tata aig General Ins Co Ltd,} `At, Penninsula Corporate Park,` `Nicholas Piramal Tower, 9th Floor,` `Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,` `Mumbai`	`…Respondents` `(orig. Respondents)`

¶6

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARIRAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2022.11.21 11:18:22 +0530

¶7

Page 1 of 20

¶8

18th November 2022

¶9

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶10

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

for the AppellantsMr Shrishank Chavanke
For Respondents No. 2Mr DS Joshi

¶13

CORAM:G.S. Patel &
Gauri Godse, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 13th October 2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 18th November 2022

¶14

:— JUDGMENT ( Per Gauri Godse J)

¶15

This First Appeal is filed by the Original Claimants for
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in M.A.C.P. No. 209 of 2013 by
Judgment and Order dated 17th February 2018. The Appellants are
heirs and legal representatives of the deceased—Vilas Ramkumar
Deshpande (“the deceased”), who died in a road accident that took
place on 15th December 2012.

¶16

I RELEVANT FACTS IN BRIEF:

¶17

1.On the date of the accident, the deceased was traveling from
Nasik towards Mumbai by Mumbai-Agra Highway and a car
proceeding in the opposite direction headed towards the divider,
crossed the divider and dashed the car in which deceased was
traveling. The deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the
very same day in the hospital. Respondent No.1 is owner of the
offending vehicle and Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle.

¶18

Page 2 of 20

¶19

18th November 2022

¶20

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶21

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶22

2.The Appellants filed M.A.C.P. No. 209 of 2013 on 25th
March 2013 and claimed an amount of Rs.2.32 crores by way of
compensation. It was the case of the Appellants that the deceased
was 46 years of age on the date of his death. He was working as
Senior Manager with Ultratech Cement Limited at Mumbai and was
entitled to monthly salary of Rs.1,33,455/- plus other allowances to
the extent of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was also contended that the
deceased was expecting to get promotion in a span of two to three
years and his salary would have increased to Rs.1,75,000/- to
Rs.2,50,000/- within a span of two to three years from the date of
his death. The Appellant also claimed Rs.2,50,000/- for medical
expenses of the deceased, Rs.20,000/- for consortium, Rs.5000/-
for funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for transportation, Rs.40,000/- for
loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus,
the claim of Appellants was more than Rs.2.30 crores. Thus, the
Appellants claimed an amount of Rs.2.32 crores by way of
compensation.

¶23

3.In the claim petition, Respondent No. 1 was served. However,
he did not appear and the claim petition proceeded ex-parte against
Respondent no. 1. Respondent No. 2—Tata AIG General Insurance
Company Ltd (“the insurance company”) appeared and filed
written statement. Respondent No. 2 admitted that the offending
vehicle was insured with it at the time of the accident, however,
contended that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions

¶24

Page 3 of 20

¶25

18th November 2022

¶26

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶27

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶28

of the insurance policy. The insurance company denied that the
driver of the offending vehicle was negligent at the time of the
accident and also denied that the car was driven at a high speed. The
insurance company contended that there was negligence on the part
of the driver of the car in which the deceased was traveling. The
contention raised by the Appellants regarding the nature of the job
of the deceased as well as the income as stated by the Appellants
was denied. Thus, the insurance company disputed the computation
of income as claimed by the Appellants.

¶29

4.By Judgment and Order dated 17th February 2018 the claim
petition was partly allowed and the Respondents were directed to
jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.1,76,08,400/- (inclusive of
no fault liability amount) along with future interest at the rate of Rs
8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation of
the amount. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that the
deceased died due to the injuries caused in the said accident. The
Tribunal held that though there was a breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company failed to
establish the fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the
policy so as to claim an exoneration by the insurance company. It
was further held that the deceased was a third party victim whose
statutory rights are protected and thus the insurance company was
liable to satisfy the award and was at liberty to recover the same
from the insured.

¶30

Page 4 of 20

¶31

18th November 2022

¶32

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶33

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶34

5.Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by
the tribunal, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have
filed the present First Appeal for enhancement of the compensation
amount.

¶35

II SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:

¶36

6.It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the tribunal
had erred in relying only on the last drawn salary slip of the
deceased and refused to consider the income of the deceased as per
Form 16 which is submitted under the Income Tax Act. Besides the
basic salary of the deceased, the entire income of the deceased
under various heads was reflected in Form 16 and thus the annual
income of the deceased was Rs. 25,39,130/-. The letter dated 27th
July 2012 issued by the employer of the deceased is also relied upon.
The said letter reveals that the employer had revised the salary of
the deceased from 1st July 2012. In support of the calculations made
by the Appellants, they have produced a copy of Form 16 as well as
the letter issued by the employer of the deceased. The Appellants
have examined Appellant No. 1 and administrative officer of the
employer of the deceased to support the claim. The learned counsel
on behalf of the Appellants has submitted computation of the
compensation as per Form No. 16 which is as follows :

¶37

Page 5 of 20

¶38

18th November 2022

¶39

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶40

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶41

Computation of Compensation as per Form-16 for Tenure of 8 months and 15 days.

¶42

`Particulars`	`Amount` `(in Rs.)`
`Gross Salary [1(d)]`	`25,76,630`
`Gratuity [2(f)]`	`7,21,800`
`Plus Tax on Employment`	`1,800`
`Plus Interest [7(a]`	`63,490`
`Plus Income Tax [15]`	`2,48,245`
`Less Statutory Deductions`	`10,35,335`
`Net Income for 8 months 15 days`	`15,41,295`
`Rs.15,41,295/- divided by 8.5 months` `= salary pm`	`1,81,328`
`Add : 30% Future Prospects Income` `= Rs.54,398/-pm`	`2,35,726`
`Less 1/4` `th Personal Exp = Rs.58,931/` `pm`	`1,76,793`
`Rs.1,76,793/- x 12 x 13`	`2,75,79,708`
`Add. Parental & Filial Consortium`
`Rs.44,000/- x 4`	`1,76,000`
`TotalJust Compensation`	`2,77,55,708`

¶43

III SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY:

¶44

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company has also submitted a computation of just compensation that can be awarded to the Appellants in two situations. The first calculation is on the basis of total gross salary and the second calculation is on the basis of gross salary plus personal perks. It is submitted on behalf of the

¶45

Page 6 of 20

¶46

18th November 2022

¶47

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶48

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶49

insurance company that the letter at Exhibit 48 issued by the
employer of the deceased does not reveal that every year the
deceased was entitled to additional amount over and above the
salary as reflected in salary slip. Thus, it was submitted that the
Tribunal has correctly relied upon the salary slip for the purpose of
computing the income of the deceased. The computation of
compensation as submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance
company is as follows:

¶50

`Description of Heads`	`Situation-1` `Total Gross` `Salary`	`Situation-2` `Gross Salary-` `Personal Perks`
`Gross Monthly Salary as per Salary Slip of` `November 2012`	`1,33,455`	`1,33,455`
`(-) Personal Allowances (Conveyance, Diff` `HRA & Uniform Maint. Allowance)`	`f` `Nil`	`8,258`
`Net Monthly Salary before Taxes`	`1,33,455`	`1,25,197`
`(-) Income Tax & Profession Tax`	`18,147`	`18,147`
`Net Monthly Salary after Taxes`	`1,15,308`	`1,07,050`
`Annual Income (Net Salary X 12 months)`	`13,83,696`	`12,84,600`
`(+) Future Prospects (30% - Age 46yrs)`	`4,15,108`	`3,85,380`
`Annual Income after Future Prospects`	`17,98,804`	`16,69,980`
`(-) Personal Expenses (1/4` `th Amount)`	`4,49,701`	`4,17,495`
`Net Annual Loss of Income`	`13,49,103`	`12,52,485`
`Multiplier`	`13`	`13`
`Total Loss of Income`	`1,75,38,339`	`1,62,82,305`
`Conventional Heads with 10% increase`
`Consortium`	`1,76,000`	`1,76,000`
`Loss of Estate`	`16,500`	`16,500`
`Funeral Expenses`	`16,500`	`16,500`
`Total Just Compensation Payable`	`1,77,47,339`	`1,64,91,305`

¶51

Page 7 of 20

¶52

18th November 2022

¶53

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶54

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶55

IV POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

¶56

1)Whether income of the deceased can be determined as per
the figures reflected in Form 16 ?

¶57

2)Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
is in accordance with settled law ?

¶58

3)Whether the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of
amount of compensation?

¶59

V CONSIDERATION OF POINT Nos. 1 and 2 :

¶60

8. We have carefully perused the oral evidence on record as well as the documents produced on record of the Tribunal. The same forms part of the private paper book filed on behalf of the Appellants. The Tribunal has considered as to whether the income of the deceased is to be calculated as per the last drawn salary slip or as per Form 16. The Tribunal has further recorded that the last month salary of the deceased for the month of November 2012 was Rs.1,33,455/- and that Form 16 showed much more income than the salary of the deceased. The Tribunal has examined the letter issued by the employer of the deceased at Exhibit No. 48 which indicated that the performance of the deceased for the year 2011-12 had exceeded the expectations of the employer company and thus the amount of salary per month was revised. Thus, it was held that the letter at Exhibit 48 indicated that the contract was extended for the next year and thus it clearly indicated that the salary amount was

¶61

Page 8 of 20

¶62

18th November 2022

¶63

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶64

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶65

closely connected with the performance rating of the deceased.
Thus, the Tribunal held that there were always ups and downs in the
progress of business and therefore, it would not be proper to
consider the income of the deceased which was in addition to the
salary. Thus, the Tribunal held that the additional amount
(allowance / perks) which was in the Form 16 cannot be considered
as permanent source of income of the deceased.

¶66

9. Thus, the only earning of the deceased taken into consideration by the Tribunal was as per the last drawn salary which was for the month of November 2012. The Tribunal took into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs. 1,33,455/- as per the salary slip and further deducted an amount of Rs.17,947/- towards income tax and Rs.200/-towards professional tax and took into consideration an amount of Rs. 1,15,308/- as last drawn salary. Thus, the annual income of the deceased was taken into consideration as Rs.13,83,696/- per annum. The Tribunal further added 30% amount i.e. Rs.4,15,108/- towards the loss of future income and thus total amount was taken as Rs.17,98,804/-.

¶67

10. The Tribunal, by applying the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma and others v DTC and another, 1deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses [Rs.17,98,804/ minus Rs.4,49,701/- = Rs.13,49,103/-]. Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses by recording that when the number of dependent family members is between 4 to 6, then 1/4th is to be

¶68

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶69

Page 9 of 20

¶70

18th November 2022

¶71

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶72

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶73

deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In
the present case the deceased was survived by his three minor
children, widow and his parents.

¶74

11. The deceased was 46 years of age at the time of death. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of death, multiplier of “13” was applied. Thus, the Tribunal concluded the entitlement of the Appellants for the purpose of compensation to be Rs.1,75,38,339/- (Rs.13,49,103/- x 13). Thus, the total entitlement was calculated on following heads by the Tribunal :

¶75

`Description of Heads`	`Rs.`
`Loss of dependency`	`1,75,38,339`
`Loss of consortium`	`40,000`
`Loss of Estate`	`15,000`
`Funeral expenses`	`15,000`
`Total Amount of compensation`	`1,76,08,339`
`Rounded up`	`1,76,08,400`

¶76

12. It is settled proposition of law, that compensation has to be fair, just and equitable. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi,2 considered catena of its earlier decisions and has laid down guidelines for computation of the quantum of compensation.

¶77

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶78

Page 10 of 20

¶79

18th November 2022

¶80

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶81

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶82

13. We find that Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine the real income of the deceased. The reason is that Form 16 has been signed and generated by the employer of the deceased. There is no evidence produced by the Respondents to show that the income of the deceased was contrary to what is shown in Form 16. The income shown in the Form 16 is attributable to the amounts earned by the deceased from his employer.

¶83

14. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, that there were always ups and downs in the progress of business and therefore it would not be proper to consider the income of the deceased which was in addition to the salary, is not acceptable. In fact, the letter issued by the employer of the deceased at Exhibit 48, clearly indicated that the performance of the deceased for the year 2011-2012 had exceeded the expectations of the employer company. Thus, the letter further recorded that compensation payable to the deceased was revised with effect from 1st July 2012. Though revised CTC shown as annexure to the letter was not produced, it is clear that the amount of salary per month exceeded beyond the basic salary as reflected in the salary slip. As per the said letter, compensation (salary) payable to the deceased was revised with effect from 1st July 2012, which means that from that date the payment of the deceased was revised on a higher side. As no figures are set out in the letter of the employer, it is necessary to take into consideration the figures of income as reflected in Form 16. For the reasons stated above the income of the deceased is to be taken, as shown in Form 16, subject

¶84

Page 11 of 20

¶85

18th November 2022

¶86

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶87

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶88

to st atutory deductions. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the income of the deceased as shown in Form 16.

¶89

15. Thus, the calculation submitted by the Learned Advocate for Appellants, is correctly based on the income of the deceased as reflected in Form 16. These calculations are as per the guidelines laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi . He has correctly taken the Gross salary as per the total income shown in Form 16. He has further rightly made the statutory deductions and arrived at a figure of net income to be Rs. 1,81,328/per month. Future prospects is added at 30% and 1/4^th is deducted towards personal expenses by applying the formula as laid down by Supreme Court.

¶90

16. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in relation to loss of consortium and love and affection. In paragraph 58.8 the Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶91

“59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.”

¶92

17. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd v Nanuram, 3Supreme Court has interpreted the word “consortium”

¶93

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶94

Page 12 of 20

¶95

18th November 2022

¶96

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶97

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶98

and then decided the entitlement of every dependent, to receive
compensation under the head of consortium. Supreme Court has
held in paragraphs 21 to 24 as follows:

¶99

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri)
205] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of
these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance,
“consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental
consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse :
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)
149]

¶100

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of
the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law
Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]

¶101

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental
aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance
and training”.

¶102

21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a

¶103

Page 13 of 20

¶104

18th November 2022

¶105

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶106

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶107

child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.

¶108

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that
the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the
economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore
permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benefcal legislationi
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High
Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine
Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court
in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt
2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in
Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC
OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which

¶109

Page 14 of 20

¶110

18th November 2022

¶111

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶112

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶113

compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.

¶114

24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as
laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present
case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the
sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.”

¶115

emphasis added.

¶116

18. Thus, as per the law laid down by Supreme Court all the surviving dependents of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 40000/each, under the head of consortium. In the present case, the deceased was survived by his three minor children, widow and his parents. Thus, all the Appellants/Claimants will be entitled to Rs. 40000/- each towards consortium. Appellants shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs. 15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15000/towards funeral expenses. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi has also held that the amount that were quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. Hence, the Appellants will be entitled to an increase by 10% on the amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses.

¶117

Page 15 of 20

¶118

18th November 2022

¶119

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶120

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶121

19. Thus, the calculations submitted by the Learned Advocate for the Appellants, is accepted being in conformity with the guidelines laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi. We therefore, accept the calculations submitted by the Learned Advocate for the Appellants. Hence the income of the deceased is accepted to be Rs. 1,81,328/- per month. 30% additions done towards future prospects and deduction by 1/4th towards personal expenses is also accepted. The calculations further rightly applies multiplier of 13. Hence, the loss of income is accepted to be Rs. 2,75,79,708/-. However, it is necessary to revise the figures towards conventional heads as follows;

¶122

(i) Parental Consortium: Rs. 40,000 X 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/(For three surviving children)

¶123

(ii)Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000/-

¶124

(For widow)

¶125

(iii)Filial Consortium: Rs. 40,000/- X 2 = Rs. 80,000/-
(For parents)

¶126

(iv)Loss of Estate: Rs. 15000/-

¶127

(v) Funeral expenses: Rs. 15000/-

¶128

Total: Rs. 2,70,000/-
Add: 10% increase: Rs. 27000/-

¶129

Total: Rs. 2,97,000/-

¶130

Thus, the Appellants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs. 2,78,76,708/- (Rs. 2,75,79,708/- + Rs. 2,97,000/-).

¶131

Page 16 of 20

¶132

18th November 2022

¶133

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶134

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶135

20. The calculation made by the Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 Insurance company is not justified as the same completely ignores the income of the deceased as shown in Form 16. This calculation takes into consideration only the basic salary of the deceased. Thus, the amount of compensation calculated by the Insurance company and awarded by the Tribunal in unreasonable and unjust. There is nothing produced on record to controvert the figures of income reflected in Form 16. Form 16 is an authentic piece of evidence. We find no reason to ignore the income of the deceased as shown in the Form 16.

¶136

VI CONSIDERATION OF POINT No. 3:

¶137

“Whether the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of amount of
compensation?”

¶138

21. The Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration only the income as shown in the salary slip. As stated hereinabove, evidence and documents produced on record shows that over and above the basic salary, the deceased was also entitled to an additional remuneration on account of his performance. Evidence on record also shows that the performance of the deceased was exceedingly well and thus there is no reason to disbelieve that the deceased would have been always entitled to additional remuneration. Thus, the total income of the deceased shown in Form 16 can be attributed to his earnings. Whenever a Tribunal or a Court fixes an amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work,

¶139

Page 17 of 20

¶140

18th November 2022

¶141

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶142

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶143

some hypothetical consideration and certain amount of sympathy.
Thus, the Tribunal ought to have considered the entries in Form 16,
which showed the total income of the deceased.

¶144

22. Thus, in the light of above discussion and by considering the facts and evidence on record as well as the higher income of the deceased as seen in Form 16, the Appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation, as recorded in aforesaid paragraphs. As recorded hereinabove, the Appellants are also entitled to higher amounts towards conventional heads, as recorded in aforesaid paragraphs. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the Appellants are entitled to enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶145

23. Finally, we agree with the Tribunal that there is no ground made out exonerating the Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, from its liability under its contract of insurance with the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to recover the entire amount from Respondent No.1.

¶146

24. Hence following order is passed;

¶147

a)First Appeal is partly allowed.

¶148

b)Judgment and Order dated 17th February 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in M.A.C.P. No. 209 of 2013 is modified.

¶149

Page 18 of 20

¶150

18th November 2022

¶151

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶152

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶153

(i) Respondents are directed to jointly and severally pay
compensation of Rs. 2,78,76,708/-(inclusive of no fault
liability) together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs
8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till
realisation of the amount.

¶154

(ii) The Appellants will be entitled to the proportionate
cost of the claim Application.

¶155

c)Respondents are directed to comply with this Judgment within a period of four months from today, by depositing the amount in the Tribunal.

¶156

d)The Appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount from the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of deposit.

¶157

e)The amount deposited in the Tribunal shall not be invested for a period of eight weeks from the date of deposit. In the event the amount is not withdrawn within a period of eight weeks from the date of deposit the same shall be invested by passing appropriate directions by the Tribunal.

¶158

f)Respondent No. 2/insurance company will be entitled to adjustment of the amount already paid under the impugned Award.

¶159

g)Appellants will also be entitled to the proportionate cost of this Appeal to be paid in the first instance by Respondent No.2.

¶160

Page 19 of 20

¶161

18th November 2022

¶162

Anjali Vilas Deshpande & Ors v Prabha Rajemndra Gupta & Anr

¶163

901-ASFA-17-2022.docx

¶164

h)Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to recover the entire amount from Respondent No. 1, only after first depositing the entire amount in the Tribunal.

¶165

(Gauri Godse, J)

¶166

 (G. S. Patel, J)

¶167

Page 20 of 20

¶168

18th November 2022

Mrs. Anjali Vilas Deshpande and Ors. v. Mrs. Prabha Rajendra Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Anjali Vilas Deshpande and Ors. v. Mrs. Prabha Rajendra Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanjoti B. Nag and 3 Ors. Vs Mahavir Infraprojects and 3 Ors.

Chanjoti B. Nag and 3 Ors. Vs Mahavir Infraprojects and Ors.

Aajay Anivasay Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Thr. Executive Engineer Pune

Madhavrao Chintamranrao Patwardhan (Deceased) Thr. L.R.S. Gurudas P. Shanbhag Vs Vijaysinghrao Madhavrao Patwardhan and Ors.

Madhavrao Chintamranrao Patwardhan (Deceased) Thr. L.R.S. Gurudas P. Shanbhag Vs Vijaysinghrao Madhavrao Patwardhan and Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs Ms. Priya Kishor Chaudhary and Others