(1)

MHAU010037352022

Presented on : 06-06-2022
Registered on : 06-07-2022
Decided on : 20-02-2025
Duration : 2 Yrs., 8 months, 14 days

BEFORE, THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

AT CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR,

(Presided over by Smt. M. S. Sahasrabudhe)

Member Motor Accident Tribunal
M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58
1. Pulagam Uma Dhiksha Pulagam Prakash }
Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household }
R/o. Balaji Nagar, Kagaznagar, }
Komaram Bheem-504 296 }
Telangana State }

2. Pulagam Harshvardhan S/o. Pulagam }

Prakash, Age : 2 years, Occupation : Nil }
R/o. As above. }
U/g. of claimant No.1 }

3. Anvika D/o. Pulagam Prakash }

Age : 2 months, Occupation : Nil }
R/o. As above. }
U/g. of claimant No.1 }

4. Pulagam Gouri W/o. Pulagam Pochaiah }

Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household }
R/o. As above. }

5. Pulagam Pochaiah S/o. Pulagam Rajaiah }

Age : 63 years, Occupation : Nil }
R/o. As above. } Claimants.
 (2) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

- Versus -
1. Mayur S/o. Jagannath Jadhav }
Age : 31 years, Occu. : Owner/Driver }
R/o. Plot No.92, Raje, Shrikrishna Nagar }
Ram Tara Hsg. Society Road, }
Aurangabad. 431 001, M.S. }

2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., }

Through its Branch Manager, }
Behind Hotel Darling, Osmanpura Road, }
Aurangabad.- 431 005, M.S. } Opponents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learned advocate for Claimants : Shri. V. C. Sarode
Learned advocate for the Opponent No.1 : Shri. Hanif Shaikh
Learned advocate for the Opponent No.2 : Smt. S.S.Deshpande
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 20th February 2025)

1. This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/-
(Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) for death of Pulagam Prakash S/o.
Pulagam Pochaiah in motor vehicular accident.

2. Brief facts of the claim petition are as under: -

On 04.04.2022 at about 1.30 a.m. on Aurangabad to

Waluj Road, near Nagar Naka, Aurangabad deceased Pulagam
Prakash S/o. Pulagam Pochaiah was traveling on a motorcycle
bearing registration no. AP-09-BS-4099 (on extreme left side of
the road) in a slow and moderate speed and by following traffic
rules. At the same time on Car bearing registration no. MH-20-DJ-
2012 came from back side in high and excessive speed, in rash
and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and gave
 (3) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

dash to the motorcycle of said deceased Pulagam Prakash S/o.

Pulagam Pochaiah. In the said accident the deceased fell down
and sustained serious injuries on his body i.e. Poly Trauma. He
was admitted in Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad on the same day.
However, on examining him, the doctor declared him as dead.
On the second day i.e. on 05.04.2022, post-mortem was
conducted by Dr. Nitin S. Ninal at Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad.

3. Police authorities of Chhawni Police Station, Dist.

Aurangabad registered Crime No.0105/2022 for offences
punishable under Section 304(A), 279, 337 and 338 of Indian
Penal Code against the opponent no.1.

4. Deceased Pulagam Prakash S/o. Pulagam Pochaiah

was 35 years old at the time of accident. He was doing service as
Assistant Manager, Production (Cold End) in CAN-PACK India
Pvt.Ltd., (Glass Bottles Branch), H-14/1, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad and was getting monthly salary of Rs.65,219/-. All
the claimants were dependent on income of Pulagam Prakash S/o.
Pulagam Pochaiah. After his demise, the claimants are suffering
from financial hardship. The claimants have computed
compensation under different heads to the tune of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) alongwith interest
of 18% per annum.

5. Opponent nos.1 & 2 have appeared in the matter.

Opponent no.1 has filed his written statement below (Exh.18) and
opponent no.2 filed his written statement below (Exh.13).

6. Opponent no.1 has denied that he was driving Car

 (4) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

bearing registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012 in rash and negligent

manner and is responsible for the accident. Opponent no.1 has
admitted that he is owner and he was driving the offending Car at
the time of accident. He has specifically submitted that at the
time of accident, the offending Car was insured with opponent
no.2 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and he was having valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident. It is his
contention that, the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving by the motorcycle by the deceased and the deceased
himself was responsible for the accident. He has further submitted
that if at all the court comes to the conclusion the claimants are
entitled to get compensation then it should be recovered from
opponent no.2.

7. Opponent No.2/Insurance Company had appeared and

had filed its written statement vide (Exh.13) and denied the claim
petition in toto. They have denied the entire theory of the
claimants about the involvement of Car bearing registration no.
MH-20-DJ-2012 in the alleged accident, the death of deceased in
said accident, his age, occupation, income etc. It is their specific
contention that the deceased was at fault in the present accident.
The deceased was driving his motorcycle negligently due to which
the accident took place. This opponent has denied that the
offending Car was insured with them. They have further
submitted that the deceased himself was riding the Motorcycle
without driving license, without wearing helmet and without
following traffic rules and he himself is responsible for the
accident. They have further submitted that the driver of offending
 (5) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

vehicle did not have valid driving license at the time of accident
and thus, there is breach of mandatory terms & conditions of the
insurance policy. Thus, this opponent is not liable to pay any
compensation. For all these reasons, the opponent no.2 has denied
its liability to pay any compensation. Lastly, they prayed to dismiss
the petition with cost.

8. The issues were framed at (Exh.19). They are

reproduced together-with findings thereon for the reasons stated
below:

Sr. ISSUES FINDINGS

No.
1. Do the claimants prove that, accident
took place due to rash and negligent
driving of Car bearing registration No. … Yes.
MH-20-DJ-2012 by opponent No.1 and
as consequences thereof Pulagam
Prakash s/o. Pulagam Pochaiah died ?

2. Do the claimants prove that, on the date

and time of accident, the vehicle Car
bearing registration No. MH-20-DJ-2012
was owned by opponent No.1 and
insured with opponent No.2 ? … Yes.

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get … Yes.

compensation ? If yes, what should be
for
the quantum of compensation ?
Rs.1,51,56,200/-
alongwith interest
of 6% p.a.

4. What order and Award? The claim petition

is partly allowed.
 (6) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

REASONS

9. In order to substantiate their claim, claimant No.1

Pulagam Uma Dhiksha Pulagam Prakash (C.W.1) has filed her
examination-in-chief on affidavit at (Exh.22). To prove the income
of the deceased the claimants have examined Vinod Ravindran
Nair (C.W.2), an employee of CAN-PACK India Pvt.Ltd. M.I.D.C.
Waluj vide (Exh.39). The claimants have closed their evidence by
filing pursis at (Exh.51).

10. The claimant relied on following documentary

evidence -

Sr. Description Exhibit Number

No.
Complaint Exh.No.26
1. F.I.R. Exh.No.27

2. Spot panchanama Exh.No.28

3. Inquest Panchnama Exh.No.29
4. Copy of P.M. Report Exh.No.30
5. Copy of Form “AA” Exh.No.31
Copy of Insurance Policy Exh.No.32
6. Copy of death certificate Exh.No.33

7. Copy of driving license Exh.No.34

8. Copy of Board certificate Exh.No.35
9. Copy of General Power Of Attorney Exh.No.45 & 46
10. Copy of Employment Contract of Exh.No.47
deceased
11. Copy of pay slip for month January Exh.No.48/1 to
2022 to March 2022 along with 48/3
certificate u/s.65(B)
 (7) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

12. Copy of Form no.16 Exh.No.49

11. The opponent no.1 and 2 did not lead any evidence in
their defense. Evidence of opponent nos.1 was closed by him by
filing pursis (Exh.52) and evidence of opponent no.2 was closed
vide pursis at (Exh.53).

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 :-

12. Both these issues are interconnected hence to avoid

repetition and for the sake of convenience they are taken together
for discussion.

13. In order to prove the claim, claimants have examined

claimant no.1 Pulagam Uma Dhiksha (C.W.1) vide (Exh.22). She
has specifically deposed that, on 04.04.2022 her husband Pulagam
Prakash s/o. Pulagam Pochaiah was going on his motorcycle
bearing registration no. AP-09-BX-4099 in slow and moderate
speed by the extreme left side of the road. He was following all
the traffic rules, however, one Car bearing registration no. MH-20-
DJ-2012 came from his backside in high and excessive speed and
it gave dash to the motorcycle of Pulagam Prakash. The Car was
driven in rash and negligent manner and due to accident Pulagam
Prakash sustained serious injuries. He was immediately admitted
to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad,
however, after examining him the doctors declared him as dead.
According to the claimant Pulagam Prakash has succumbed to the
accidental injuries. The complaint of the accident was lodged in
police station Chawani immediately.
 (8) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

14. The claimant Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) has specifically

deposed about the mode of accident and has stated that accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing
registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012. She was cross examined at
length by learned advocate for opponent No.2 however no
material admission has come on record in her cross examination.

15. In the case in hand, learned advocate for the opponent

no.2 has specifically argued that Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) has not
witnessed the accident. The claimants have not examined any
witness who has personally witnessed the accident. Thus,
deposition of Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) regarding the mode of
accident is on the basis of information given to her by others and
it is hearsay and has no relevance. As argued by learned advocate
for the opponent no.2, though it is matter of record that the
claimants have not examined any eye witness still it needs to be
appreciated that opponent nos.1 has not denied the accident. In
paragraph 4 of the written statement, opponent no.1 has
specifically admitted the registration number, type of the vehicle
involved in the accident and name and address of owner and
insurer. Further, the claimant has filed on record the police papers
of crime no.105/2022. The said crime is registered on the basis of
F.I.R. of the accident and it was thoroughly investigated by the
police. Hence to ascertain the mode of accident and to ascertain
who was at fault, it is necessary to examine the police papers.

16. From the complaint at (Exh.26) and F.I.R. at (Exh.27)

it appears that, the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012. At the
 (9) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

time of accident the offending vehicle was driven by the opponent

no.1 and it gave dash to the backside of motorcycle of the
deceased. From the F.I.R. (Exh.27) it also appears that dash was
given to the motorcycle of the deceased from the backside. From
Spot panchnama at (Exh.28) also it appears that spot of the
incidence is situated on the extreme left side of the road. The said
document supports the contention of the claimant Pulagam Uma
(C.W.1) that at the time of accident deceased was driving his
motorcycle from the left side of the road. From the F.I.R. at
(Exh.27) and complaint at (Exh.26) it appears that dash was given
to the motorcycle of the deceased from his backside. Opponents
have not examined any witness to prove that accident took place
due to fault of deceased. Thus, it is clear that when the deceased
was driving his motorcycle by left side of the road the offending
Car gave dash to his motorcycle from the rear side and thus the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Car
bearing registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012 by opponent no.1. The
opponents have not denied these documents and no evidence has
come on record to gather that the case was not investigated
properly or there are some lacunas in the investigation. Thus, the
documentary evidence which has come on record itself shows the
rashness and negligence, in driving of the Car bearing registration
no. MH-20-DJ-2012. The claimant has also filed on record the
copies of inquest panchnama (Exh.29), copy of P.M. report of the
deceased (Exh.30) and copy of Form “AA” (Exh.31). All these
documents corroborate the version of the claimant (C.W.1) that
the deceased had succumbed to the accidental injuries.
 (10) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

17. In the light of above discussion, I have come to the

conclusion that, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, accident took place and in said accident, Pulagam Prakash
(deceased) had expired. It is not disputed by opponent no.1 that
at the time of accident he was owner and driver of Car bearing
registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012. From the copy of insurance
policy (Exh.32) it appears that at the time of accident, the
offending Car was insured with opponent no.2. Thus, I have come
to the conclusion that the claimants have proved that accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration
no. MH-20-DJ-2012 by the opponent no.1 and as consequences
thereof Pulagam Prakash died. At the relevant time, the offending Car
was owned by opponent No.1 and was insured with opponent No.2.
Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 and 2 in affirmative.

AS TO ISSUE NO.3 :-

18. In view of the findings of issues no.1 and 2, the claimants

are entitled for compensation. To determine the compensation
amount, the tribunal must consider the age of the deceased, his
income and dependency. Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) states that the
deceased was 35 years old at the time of death. To support the
said version, the claimant filed on record the verified copy of
driving license of the deceased at (Exh.34). From the said
document the date of birth appears to 16.06.1987. Other than this
no document is filed on record to ascertain the age of deceased.
Hence, considering the date of birth of deceased as 16.06.1987 as
it appearing on the driving license and considering the fact that
accident took place on 04.04.2022 and deceased expired on the
 (11) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

same date, the age of deceased at the time of accident comes to 34

years 9 months and 18 days old at the time of accident.

19. It is also deposed by Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) that at the

time of accident, the deceased was working as Assistant Manager,
Production (Cold End) in CAN-PACK India Pvt. Ltd. and he was
earning handsome salary of Rs.65,219/- per month. Out of this
income the deceased was maintaining himself and all the
claimants and he was the only earning member in the family. All
the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased.

20. To prove the income of the deceased the claimants

have examined Vinod Ravindran Nair (C.W.2). This witness is the
employee in CAN-PACK India Pvt. Ltd. and he was holding the
power of attorney (Exh.45 and 46), to depose before the Court.
The said witness has also produced on record, verified copies of
the employment contract between deceased Pulagam Prakash and
the company at (Exh.47), his pay slips for month of January-2022
to March-2022 along with certificate under Section 65(B) of
Indian Evidence Act at (Exh.48/1) to (Exh.48/3) and form no. 16
of the deceased at (Exh.49). Ld. Advocate for the claimant has
argued that, the form 16 of deceased has to be relied by the Court
for ascertaining the annual income of deceased. On the other
hand, Ld. Advocate for the opponent has argued that, the witness
examined by the claimants has admitted in his cross examination
that he was working in HR department and not in the department
of the deceased. He could not give satisfactory answer about the
head of performance pay appearing in the salary of the deceased.
 (12) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

The claimants have not filed on record, the bank statement of the
account of the deceased and thus the evidence brought on record
could not be considered.

21. In the case in hand, the witness examined by the

claimants i.e. Vinod (C.W.2) has specifically deposed that, he was
holding power of attorney of the company to depose before the
Court. He has also produced on record said power of attorney
(Exh.45 and Exh.46). From the said documents, it appears that,
though the witness was working in different than that of deceased
still the department, company has authorized him to depose on his
behalf about the income of the deceased. Thus, the evidence of
this witness can be considered.

22. Vinod (C.W.2) has also produced on record, the copy

of salary slips of deceased for the month of January-2022 to
March-2022 i.e. income of the deceased just prior to the accident.
As argued by the Ld. Advocate for the opponent, though it appears
that this witness could not gave satisfactory answers about the
performance pay paid to the deceased still, he has filed on record
form no.16 of the deceased in TRACES (TDS Reconciliation
Analysis and Correction Enabling System). This document clarifies
the disclosure of the company to the income tax department about
the income received by the deceased from the company. The said
document reflects the income of the deceased and his income tax
deducted at source and can be relied upon. In support of his
argument, the Ld. Advocate for the claimant has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
 (13) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

Meenakshi Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2023(3) T.A.C. 723

(S.C.) wherein it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the gross
salary of the deceased should be considered for computation of
the compensation and the income tax paid by the deceased should
be deducted from his gross annual income. As argued by the Ld.
Advocate for the claimant and relying upon ratio in the aforesaid
authority from the form no.16 (Exh.No.49) of deceased the
annual income of deceased comes to income of Rs.8,30,258/-
(after deducting income tax amount). From the said document the
income of the deceased appears to be approximately
Rs.8,30,258/- (deducting the income tax). Thus, the monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.69,188.16/- (rounding upon
i.e. Rs.69,200/-).

23. Further, for deciding the future prospects, funeral

expenses and consortium, the claimants have relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported
in AIR 2017 (S.C.) 5157”. In case in hand, the employment
contract of the deceased is filed on record (Exh.47). From the said
contract it appears that only the date of commencement of the
contract is specified as 10-04-2014. The duration of the contract is
not mentioned in the said document. The clause for termination of
the contract specifies that the contract can be terminated if there
is gross negligence or gross violation of law by the employee i.e.
deceased. The employment of the deceased has commencement of
10-04-2014 and has continued since then. Nothing is brought on
record to show that the deceased was negligent or at fault and the
 (14) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

aforesaid employment was terminated at any point of time. In the

said backdrop the employment of the deceased needs to be
considered as permanent employment.
24. Considering that the deceased was in permanent
employment and applying the ratio in the authority of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi cited supra, an
addition of future prospects of 50% of the established income
should be granted, where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. Similarly, reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
granted to each of the claimant, keeping in mind the directions to
enhance the said amount at the rate of 10% in every three years.
25. It must also be considered that in the petition in all 5
claimants are shown to be dependent on the deceased. It has also
come on record that the deceased was married and claimant no.1
is his wife and claimant nos.2 and 3 are his children and claimant
no.4 and 5 are his parents. In the said scenario, in light of the
aforesaid authority of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi towards the personal expenditure of the deceased
and dependency, 1/4 amount should be deducted out of his
yearly income. So also, as per the same judgment, the claimants
are also entitled for the amount of Rs.16,500/-, towards funeral
expenses, Rs.16,500/-, towards loss of estate and Rs.44,000/-
each towards loss of Consortium.
26. For the purpose of assessing and quantifying the
compensation amount the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of "Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
 (15) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

Corporation and another, 2009(2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.)” , relied upon

by learned advocate for the claimants needs to be considered. I
have already come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased
at the time of accident was 34 years. In the said circumstances, as
per the ratio in the aforesaid authority for the age group of 31 to
35 the multiplier 16 would be applicable.

27. The claimants are also entitled for 6% interest from

the date of filing claim petition i.e. from 06.06.2022 till its full
realization, as per the ratio in the authorities of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of “Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. Versus
Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. Special Leave Petition (C) No.5311
of 2019 decided on 16.11.2021”, relied upon by Ld. Advocate for
opponent no.2.
28. In the case at hand, the learned counsel for the
opponent no.2 i.e. Insurance Company, has taken plea that
deceased was driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner
and in high speed and he was not having driving license and was
not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Hence, he also has
contributed to the accident. In support of his argument that the
deceased has contributed to the accident and the compensation
should be reduced 50%, Ld. Advocate for opponent no.2 has
placed reliance upon : (I) Renuka Devi H Vs. Bangalore
Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others 2008(3) T.A.C.
389 (S.C.) , wherein it it held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, that
when scooty of appellant hit rear wheel of bus, some contributory
negligence should also be attributed to the appellant. High Court
held appellant guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 50%.
 (16) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

(II) Anvarali Abdullamiya Saiyed Versus Gujarat State Road

Transport Corporation and Another 2011 (1) T.A.C. 573 (Guj.) ,
wherein it is held by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, that motorcyclist
while coming from opposite direction, dashed with bus not with
front portion of bus but dashed on conductor side. Tribunal rightly
recorded a finding attributing 50% negligence to the claimant.
(III) Purnanarayan Sinha Versus Election Commission Of India
and others 2001 (2) T.A.C. 122 (Gau.) , wherein it is held by
Hon’ble High Court Of Gujrat, that proportionate reduction should
be made in the amount of compensation on ground of
contributory negligence if tribunal can see that accident would not
have taken place if claimant would have taken proper care.
29. To appreciate the said argument of the learned counsel
for the opponent if at all evidence which has come on record is
considered then it appears that Ld. Advocate for the opponent has
not given suggestion to Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) that deceased was
not wearing helmet at the time of accident. During cross
examination Pulagam Uma (C.W.1) has deposed that, her husband
was driving the vehicle on left side of road in slow and moderate
speed, on the basis of information given to her by the police.
Nothing is brought on record by opponent no.2 to prove that the
contentions in the F.I.R. (Exh.27) or complaint (Exh.26) are not
correct and the investigation done by the police is faulty. In the
said circumstances, as discussed above if at all the contentions in
F.I.R. (Exh.27), complaint (Exh.26) and spot panchanama
(Exh.28) are considered then the only inference which can be
drawn is that the deceased was driving his motorcycle on the left
 (17) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

side of the road by following traffic rules and Car bearing

registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012 gave dash to him from backside.
Nothing has come on record that the deceased has contributed to
this accident. The opponents have not brought any other evidence
on record to prove their defence. Hence, the ratio in the aforesaid
authorities is not supporting the case of opponent no.2.
Accordingly, I hold that opponent no.1 is solely responsible for the
accident, and it occurred due to his rash and negligent driving and
not due to the fault of the deceased.
30. At the time of accident, the offending Car bearing
registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012 was insured with opponent no.2
and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
Car bearing registration no. MH-20-DJ-2012, by opponent no.1.
Thus, both the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation amount which can be quantified as follows:-

Computation of the compensation

1) Monthly Income of deceased : Rs. 69,200/-
Pulagam Prakash
2) Add 50% future prospects : Rs.34,600/-
3) Monthly income comes to : Rs.69,200 + 34,600/- =
Rs.1,03,800/-
4) Yearly income : Rs.1,03,800 X 12 =
Rs.12,45,600/-
5) Deduction towards personal ex- : 1/4 of Rs. 12,45,600 =
penses of the deceased out of Rs.3,11,400/-
yearly dependency
6) Annual dependency : Rs.12,45,600 - 3,11,400
= Rs.9,34,200/-
7) Multiplier applicable as per Judg- : 16
ment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma Case
 (18) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

8) Total loss of income : Rs. 9,34,200 X 16 =

Rs.1,49,47,200/-
9) Loss of estate : Rs.16,500/-
10) Loss of consortium for four : Rs.44,000/- X 4 =
claimants 1,76,000/-
11) Funeral expenses : Rs.16,500/-
12) Total Compensation : Rs. 1,49,47,200 +16500
+1,76,000+16,500 =
1,51,56,200/-
13) Interest : @ 6% p.a.

31. In the circumstances claim petition deserves to be

allowed partly with proportionate costs. Thus I answer issue no.3
accordingly.

AS TO ISSUE NO.4 :-

32. In view of findings given to the aforesaid issues, I am

of the considered view that the offending vehicle at the time of
accident was validly insured with opponent no.2. In the said
circumstances opponent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,51,56,200 - (Rs.
One Crore, Fifty One Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred
only) including NFL to the claimants with 6% interest from the
date of filing of claim i.e. from 06.06.2022 till its full realization.
Out of the aforesaid amount claimant no.1 be wife of the deceased
and mother of claimant no.1 and 2 would be entitled to receive
the maximum share of the compensation amount i.e.
Rs.51,56,200/- (Rs.Fifty One Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two
Hundred only) along with interest. Keeping in view, the age of
claimant no.1 and for securing her future it would be necessary to
 (19) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

pay some amount to her immediately and to invest remaining

amount to be paid to her at certain intervals. Claimant no.1 and 2
be minor children of the deceased would be entitled to receive
compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Lakhs
only) each along with interest thereon. Both the claimants being
minor it would be necessary to invest their compensation amount
in any nationalized bank of the choice of claimant no.1 and she
would be entitled to receive the interest over the said amount with
quarterly rest. She shall use the said amount for meeting with
medical or educational expenditure of claimant no.2 and 3. After
the claimants no.2 and 3 attain majority, they shall get the amount
of their share deposited in the fixed deposit. Claimant no.4 is old
aged mother. Even considering his age and to secure her future, it
is necessary to pay certain amount to compensation to her
immediately and to deposit the remaining amount of
compensation in fixed deposit of certain period. Accordingly, the
present claim deserves to be allowed partly with proportionate
costs against the opponent nos.1 and 2. In the aforesaid
circumstances, in answer to issue no.4, I proceed to pass the
following order -

ORDER

1. The petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

2. Opponent nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay

compensation amount of Rs.1,51,56,200 /- (Rs. One Crore,
Fifty One Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred
only), inclusive of NFL amount, with interest at the rate of
6.00% p.a. from the date of presentation of present petition
i.e. from 06.06.2022 till its realization.
 (20) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

3. Opponent no. 2 shall pay the amount either through RTGS

or NEFT in the bank account maintained by the Tribunal.
The details of the bank account are as under :-

Account Name : Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal, Aurangabad
Account Number : 40777009568
Bank Name & : State Bank of India, Branch Mahaveer Chowk,
Branch Aurangabad.
IFSC Code : SBIN0021112

4. After deposit of the compensation amount in the above

mentioned bank account, opponent shall inform the
Tribunal by sending an email.

5. Out of the total compensation amount deposited, Claimant

No.1 is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.51,56,200/-
(Rs. Fifty One Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred
only) alongwith the interest thereon.

6. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs.11,56,200/- (Rs. Eleven

Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) along
with interest be paid to claimant no.1 immediately, amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only) be deposited in
any nationalized bank for five years, amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only) be deposited in any
nationalized bank for 10 years and amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) be deposited in any
nationalized bank for 15 years.

7. Out of the remaining compensation amount, Claimant nos.2

and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-
(Rs. Thirty Five Lakhs only) each and interest thereon.

8. Compensation amount of claimant nos.2 and 3 and interest

thereon be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank of
the choice of the claimant no.1 till they attain majority and
claimant no.1 will be entitled to receive the quarterly
interest over said amount.
 (21) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

9. Claimant no.4 is entitled for compensation amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakhs only). Out of the aforesaid
amount, Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) along with
interest be paid to her, amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten
Lakhs only) be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized
bank for three years and amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten
Lakhs only) be kept in any nationalized bank for five years.

10. After deposit of the compensation amount, Rs.11,56,200/-

(Rs. Eleven Lakhs, Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred
only) along with interest and amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.
Ten Lakhs only) along with interest coming to the share of
claimant nos.1 and 4 respectively be credited in their bank
account either through RTGS or NEFT.

11. The claimants shall produce copy of their savings bank

account of any nationalized bank and their PAN Cards
before receipt of the amount.

12. The copy of award be sent to opponent no.2 by E-mail.

13. Award be drawn, on deposit of the deficit court fees, if any.

(Judgment dictated, delivered and pronounced in open Court)

Digitally signed
by MOULASHRI
SHIRISH
SAHASRABUDHE
Date: 2025.02.21
18:14:21 +0530

Date : 20.02.2025. (Smt. M. S. Sahasrabudhe)

Assistant District Judge-5,
Aurangabad.
 (22) M.A.C.P. No.362/2022
Exh.No.58(Judgment)

CERTIFICATE

I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Judgment are the same,
word to word, as per the original Judgment.

Name of the Stenographer : Sau. Manjushri P. Suryawanshi,

Stenographer (Grade-I),

Court : Ad-hoc Sessions Judge-5,

Aurangabad

Date : 20.02.2025
Judgment signed by the
presiding officer on : 21.02.2025
Judgment uploaded on : 21.02.2025