While explaining the correct meaning of the last salary that the deceased drew at the time of his death, the Bombay High Court held that the salary of the deceased at the time of the accident or his subsequent death is to be considered based on what the deceased drew throughout the year in all the months, benefit whereof his entire family would be entitled to and not just the portion of his salary which he drew in the part of the last month in which he died.

The High Court held so while considering an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited (Appellant/MSRTC), which owned the offending vehicle, viz. the MSRTC Bus, against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), whereby the Appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 18,91,600/- inclusive of No-Fault Liability (NFL) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim, till realisation.

While accepting that the Tribunal is duty-bound to decide the claim of the applicant independently based on evidence brought before it without being influenced by the observations of the criminal court, the High Court clarified that the evidence of the deposition of the driver of the offending vehicle or the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case would not assist the case of the Appellant in the light of the documentary evidence on record.

Therefore, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Indira Shrivastava and Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 763], a Single Judge Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that “in this case, which form the entire pay packet of the deceased at the time of his death as the same is reflected in the salary slip of the deceased, and not being a reimbursement which amounts were not only for the benefit of the deceased but also for the benefit of his entire family, in my view, cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation to be payable to the claimants”.

Advocate Nitesh V. Bhutekar appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Niketan Nakhwa appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed with the MACT by the widow and the son of one Kashinath Zanje, who died in an accident in 2015, alleging that Kashinath died after his motorcycle was being dashed and hit by MSRTC Bus (offending vehicle). Since the bus was owned by the Appellant, the Respondents claimed compensation of Rs.50 lacs against the Appellant with future interest. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, held that the claimants, viz., the Respondents proved that the deceased died due to the subject motor accident and the accident took place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the MSRTC bus. Considering the age of the deceased, income of the deceased and dependency, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to get a total amount of Rs.18,91,600/- inclusive of NFL to be paid by the MSRTC. Hence, the Appellant approached the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the documentary evidence consisting of police papers namely the FIR, the Spot panchnama, the Inquest panchnama, and the postmortem report suggest that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending ST Bus belonging to the Appellant-Corporation.

“The panchnama dated 22nd February 2015 also clearly mentions that the offending bus came at high speed over the turning on the Mumbai-Goa Highway Road and while turning at high speed dashed against the motorcycle coming from the side of MIDC causing the accident. The cross-examination of the driver of the offending vehicle confirms the contents of the FIR and the spot panchnama”, added the Bench.

The High Court noted that the burden of proving that the driver of the offending bus was not negligent or that the deceased was negligent or that he came from the wrong side was entirely upon the Appellant MSRTC.

The High Court also found that none of the documentary evidence in and around the date of the accident refer to or support the version of the driver of the offending vehicle that when he reached Chambhar Khind, at that time one biker came from the wrong side and dashed the ST Bus on conductor side and that the accident took place due to the fault of the bike rider.

Accordingly, the Bench concluded that the Tribunal has correctly applied the principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors. [ 2017 ACJ 2700] with respect to the multiplier for determining the dependency, for future prospects, for deduction towards personal and living expenses or for the deduction or entitlements under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, to arrive at the total amount of compensation that would be payable to the Respondents-Original Claimants in the claim application by the Appellant -MSRTC.

Cause Title: The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mina Kashinath Zanje and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Bombay High CourtJustice Abhay AhujaMotor Vehicles Act

Pankaj Bajpai