The Bombay High Court partly allowed an appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 16.12.2003 in this appeal, filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act before this court.
The Court observed that though, there may not be a total loss of income from agriculture, loss for want of skilled supervision of the deceased cannot be ignored.
Brief Facts:
The claimants had approached the Tribunal at Parbhani under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act raising a claim for compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs towards the accidental death of Dashrath Santramji Varade, who died in a motor vehicular accident dated 8.5.2001. The deceased was returning after closing his shop situated at Pathri on his two-wheeler. Another motorcycle came from the opposite direction and gave a forceful dash to the motorcycle of the deceased.
The deceased suffered fatal injuries in the said accident. The claimants contended that the accident resulted owing to the negligence of the offending motorcycle rider. It was owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, they are liable to pay the compensation. Claimants further contend that the deceased was running a Kirana Shop so also looking after the agricultural land to earn livelihood for the family. They pleaded cumulative monthly income of the deceased from all the sources @ Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an award of Rs.2,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. The claimants are before the court in this appeal aggrieved by the assessment of compensation made under the award.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the deceased had income from two sources, firstly, from his grocery shop and secondly from agriculture. The Tribunal inadequately assessed income from the grocery shop and no consideration was given to the loss of agricultural income. He invited the attention of this Court to 7/12 extracts placed on record before the Tribunal to contend that huge agricultural land was owned by the family of the deceased. Even, more than 12 acres of land were standing in the name of the deceased alone. He argued that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation towards future prospects. Even the assessment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads is meager.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsels for the Respondents argued that no concrete material has been placed on record of the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, on guesswork, passed the adequate award. He submitted that in the case of agricultural income, loss of earnings cannot be considered since the land continues to be under cultivation by the family members and they generate similar income as earned during the lifetime of the deceased.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that the dispute in the present appeal is restricted to the assessment of compensation. The Court said that the tribunal did not consider income from agriculture land for the reason that agriculture land stands in the name of the parents of the deceased and even appellant/claimant no.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that land was being cultivated jointly.
The Court observed that it is difficult to accede with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, particularly, in light of the documentary evidence available on record in this case. The 7/12 extract placed on the record of the Tribunal shows that the deceased had more than 12 Acres of land in his own name, apart from family holding. In that view of the matter, though, there may not be a total loss of income from agriculture, loss for want of skilled supervision of the deceased cannot be ignored. The Court was inclined to consider the loss of supervision to the tune of Rs.2,000/- p.m. i.e., Rs.24,000/- per annum in addition to the loss of income from the grocery shop.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay the total compensation to the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the entire amount after appropriating amount already released/paid to claimants as per the award of Tribunal.
Case Title: Gangubai & Ors. vs Dayanand Dhondiram Sonar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO.957 OF 2004
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Girish Rane
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R.F. Totala
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
