Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 11 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
1110FA86.03.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.86/2003
APPELLANTS:'
1] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur,
through its Divisional Controller
2] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Mumbai, through its Chairman
ig VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Natthu s/o Raghodeo Pancham, aged about 59 years,
occ : Labourer, r/o Masali, tah Katol, district ; Nagpur
2] Smt. Sakwarbai w/o Natthu Pancham, aged about 53
years, occ : household, r/o Masali, tahsil Katol, district :
Nagpur.
============================================
Mr. R.S. Charpe, advocate for appellants
Mr. A.J. Pophaly, advocate for respondent no.1 & 2
============================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 11/10/2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
The judgment and award dated 31/10/2002 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is challenged
1110FA86.03.odt
in this first appeal.
2] One Vinod aged about 22 years, while travelling in
city bus on 9.9.1993 fell down and as a result of injuries
sustained by him, he died. His parents lodged claim for award
of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal
considering the age, income etc. of the deceased awarded
compensation of Rs.2,84,136/- inclusive of no-fault liability
claim. Aggrieved with this judgment and award the appellant
- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has filed
this appeal.
3] Mr. Charpe, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the Tribunal committed an error
while assuming the loss of dependency and also wrongly
applied the multiplier of 17.
4] Mr. Pophaly, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, supported the judgment and award.
5] The point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether the learned Tribunal has
correctly worked out the figure of loss of
dependency and whether multiplier - 17
is applicable in the present case?
6] It seems that the learned Tribunal was justified in
assuming the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-
p.m. despite the fact that it was stated by the father of the
1110FA86.03.odt
deceased that the deceased was earning Rs.1800/- per month.
The deceased was unmarried. In that view of the matter, the
deduction towards his personal and living expenses ought to
have been 50% and not 1/3rd. As regards application of proper
multiplier the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier of
17. Hence the compensation which can be worked will be
thus: Rs.24,000/- annual income. 50% deduction i.e.
Rs.12,000/-. The loss of dependency Rs.12,000/- X 17 =
2,04,000/-. Considering the fact that parents lost their young
son aged about 23 years, it will be appropriate to add
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection & loss of
estate. Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore,
reducing Rs.25,000/- towards no-fault liability, the total
comes to Rs.2,09,000/-.
7] In the result, the appeal succeeds partly. The
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The
claimants shall be held entitled to claim compensation of
Rs.2,09,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. From the date of filing
of the appeal till its realisation. There shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
