FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2018

10th July 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Ms. Gayatri Diwe Shri P. R. Agrawal
Respondent Counsel: Shri A. P. Sadavarte shri P. D. Khedikar Shri P. V. Bansod
Act Name: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Section :
Section 140 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Cases Cited :
Paras 4, 6: Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors., [2018 All SCR 2001]
Para 6: Sarla Verma (Smt) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121

JUDGEMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Admit.

3. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The present appeal is against the judgment of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 379/2009. The judgment is challenged only on the ground of quantum of amount of compensation granted by MACT. Without mentioning the facts, it is not in dispute that the only challenge in this appeal is that MACT, Amravati wrongly taken the multiplier as 14 instead of 15. As per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors. [2018 All SCR 2001], Rs. 40,000/- is to be granted towards loss of consortium to each relatives (parents, wife etc.). Deceased left four nearest relatives i.e. wife, two children and mother, therefore, they are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri P. D. Khedikar holding for Shri P. V. Bansod, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned counsel Shri A. P. Sadavarte for the respondent no. 1. None appeared for the respondent no. 2.

6. There is no dispute about the accident. Judgment of MACT is also not challenged by the insurance company or owner of offending vehicle. There is no dispute that deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. Monthly income of deceased was of Rs. 18,614/is also not disputed. Learned MACT, Amravati not taken into consideration the multiplier of 15 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Learned MACT not granted loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent (4 in numbers). There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors. (supra). Looking to the submissions, the proper amount of compensation is as under :-

Monthly income of deceased : Rs. 18,614
_
Deduction of vehicle allowance 75
Rs. 18,539
Yearly Income (18,539 x 12) : Rs. 2,22,468/_
Income Tax Deduction Rs . 2,198/Rs.
2,20,270/Net
annual Income : Rs. 2,20,270/+
30% Future prospects : Rs. 66,081/Rs.
2,86,351/_
¼th deduction : Rs. 70,588/Rs.
2,15,763/Deceased
was aged about 40 yrs. x
Therefore, multiplier : 15
Rs. 32,36,445/-
Rs. 32,36,445/+
Loss of love and affection : 1,00,000/+
Loss of consortium (40,000 x 4) : 1,60,000/(
for four dependents) +
Loss of estate : 15,000/+
Funeral expenses : 15,000/Total
compensation : Rs. 35,26,445/-

7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 379/2009 is hereby modified as under :-
“Respondent nos. 2 and 3 (owner and insurance company) shall jointly and severally pay the amount of Rs. 35,26,445/-inclusive of N.F.L. under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act along with interest @ 7% per annum to the petitioners from the date of petition till the realization of whole amount.”
The rest of the order is maintained as it is.

8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.