Bombay High Court
Venubai Rangrao Patil vs Pandhainath Dattatraya Ahirrao ... on 5 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
60-01FA.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.60 of 2001
Venubai w/o Rangrao Patil
Age 41 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Nawalpura, Chopda,
District Jalgaon. .. Appellant
(Orig. Petitioner)
Versus
1. Pandharinath Dattatraya Ahirrao,
Age 35 years, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Wanwade, Tal. Shirpur,
District Dhule.
2. M.S.R.T. Corporation Bombay
through Depot Manager, Dhule.
3. Shikhachand Gokuldas Jain,
Age adult, Occ. Trader,
Resident of Panchaleshwar Galli,
Chopda, District Dhule.
4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Pune, Branch Dhule.
5. Rangrao Shankar Patil
Age 45 years, Occu. nil
R/o. Nawalpura, Tq. Chopda,
District Jalgaon.
6. Sunil Rangrao Patil,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Nawalpura, Tal. Chopda,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
(Nos. 1 to 4 Ori. Opponents.
Nos. 5 and 6 Ori. Petitioners)
...
Mr. L.S. Mahajan, Advocate h/f Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate
for Appellant;
Mr. D.S.Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:06:58 :::
60-01FA.doc
2
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
Dated : 05th April, 2016.
...
JUDGMENT :
1) The original claimant No.1 in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.30 of 1994 have preferred the present
appeal challenging the Judgment and Award passed in the
said petition on 26.11.1999 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dhule.
2) The appellant and respondent nos. 5 are the
parents, whereas the respondent no.6 is the younger
brother of deceased Chandrakant Rangrao Patil who died in
a vehicular accident happened on 06.12.1993, within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Thalner having involvement of
a S.T. Bus bearing registration MH-20/A-4563 and a Jeep
bearing registration No. MH-19/C-5517 (appellant,
respondent no.4 and respondent No.6 are hereinafter
referred to as 'claimants). It was the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal that, the alleged accident had
happened because of the negligence on the part of the
driver of the S.T. Bus, and they have therefore claimed
compensation from the driver of the S.T. Bus and the
60-01FA.doc
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Deceased
Chandrakant was driving the Jeep involved in the alleged
accident, at the time when accident happened. According
to the claimants, the driver of the Bus was rashly driving
the S.T. Bus at the relevant time and coming from the
wrong side, he gave a dash to the Jeep, which was being
driven by deceased Chandrakant and in the accident so
stated in
happened, Chandraknt ultimately suffered the death.
the claim petition, age of the deceased
As
Chandrakant was 21 years on the date of accident. He was
serving as a driver on the Jeep involved in the accident
owned by original respondent no.3 and was receiving salary
to the tune of Rs.1,600/- per month and also used to
receive Rs.30 per day as daily Bhatta. It was the
contention of the appellants before the Tribunal that, they
were depending upon income of the deceased
Chandrakant.
3) The claim petition was resisted by the S.T.
Corporation mainly on the ground that, in occurrence of the
alleged accident, there was absolutely no negligence on the
part of driver of the S.T. Bus and the accident in question
had happened because of the sole negligence of deceased
60-01FA.doc
Chandrakant who was driving the Jeep involved in the
alleged accident.
4) The learned Tribunal on the basis of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced before it, partly
allowed the petition. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding
that, in occurrence of the alleged accident, the driver of the
Jeep and the driver of the S.T. Bus both were equally
responsible. Learned Tribunal assessed the dependency of
the claimants on the income of deceased Chandrakant to
the tune of Rs.500/- per month and by applying the
multiplier of 16, assessed the dependency compensation to
the tune of Rs.96,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.
4,000/- to the claimants towards the loss of love and
affection, and thus assessed the total compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- and awarded 50% of the sum to the claimants in
view of the finding recorded by it that, for occurrence of the
accident in question, rash and negligent driving of the
deceased was equally responsible. Aggrieved by the
judgment and award, the original claimants are before this
Court in appeal.
5) Shri L.S. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that, the Tribunal has grossly
60-01FA.doc
erred in recording a finding that, alleged accident had
happened because of the equal negligence on the part of
the driver of the S.T. Bus and the deceased who was driving
the Jeep at the relevant time. Taking me through the
evidence and particularly the averments in the spot
panchanama, the learned Counsel sought to canvass that,
on the basis of evidence, which was before the Tribunal, no
such finding could have been recorded by the Tribunal
holding deceased Chandrakant equally responsible for
occurrence of the alleged accident. Learned Counsel
submitted that, the situation on the spot clearly shows that,
the S.T. Bus had entered on the wrong side and gave a
dash to the Jeep. According to the learned Counsel, there
was no negligence on the part of deceased Chandrakant in
occurrence of the alleged accident.
6) The learned Counsel further submitted that,
even in assessing the amount of compensation, the
Tribunal has committed grave errors. The learned Counsel
pointed out that, the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation, deducted 2/3rd of the amount towards the
personal expenses of deceased Chandrakant. Learned
Counsel submitted that, it is wholly impermissible and was
60-01FA.doc
against the settled principle of law. Learned Counsel
further submitted that, having regard to the age of
deceased Chandrakant, the Tribunal ought to have applied
multiplier of 18, whereas the Tribunal has applied the
multiplier of 16. Learned Counsel further submitted that, a
very meager sum has been awarded by the Tribunal
towards the loss of love and affection and has not awarded
any amount towards the funeral expenses and also towards
future prospects of deceased Chandrakant. Learned
Counsel submitted that, a very reasonable sum was
claimed by the claimants towards compensation, and in
such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have in toto
awarded the claim so filed by the petitioners. The learned
Counsel, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the
compensation and to modify the award to that extent.
7) Shri Bagul, learned Counsel appearing for the
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation supported
the impugned judgment and Award. Learned Counsel
submitted that, elaborate discussion has been made by the
Tribunal, while deciding the issue of negligence in
occurrence of the alleged accident. Learned Counsel
submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly recorded a
60-01FA.doc
conclusion that, in occurrence of the alleged accident , the
driver of both the offending vehicles were responsible in
equal proportion. Leaned Counsel further submitted that,
the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is also just and
fair and is based on the evidence brought before it and
hence requires no interference. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8)
After having heard the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on
perusal of the record of the case and more particularly the
evidence adduced in the matter, the questions for my
determination are:
(a) whether, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the
point of negligence can be upheld?
(b) whether, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
can be said to be just and fair compensation?
9) In so far as the aspect of negligence in
occurrence of the accident is concerned, the Tribunal has
elaborately discussed the situation on the spot as is
revealing from the spot panchanama and other relevant
documents. After having read the discussion so made by
the Tribunal, I do not find any infirmity in the finding
60-01FA.doc
recorded by the Tribunal holding the drivers of both the
vehicles, involved in the alleged accident, responsible in
occurrence of the said accident in equal proportion.
10) However, the compensation determined by the
learned Tribunal apparently appears to be unjust. The
Tribunal has committed a grave mistake in deducting 2/3rd
amount of the total income of the deceased towards his
personal expenses. The Law on this point stand settled
that, in case of deceased bachelor, the amount equal to
one half of his income can be at the most deducted towards
his personal expenses. Secondly, the Tribunal has applied
a wrong multiplier. Considering that, deceased
Chandrakant was aged about 21 years on the date of
accident, the Tribunal must have applied the multiplier of
18 and not of 16. Thirdly, I find substance in the
submission so advanced on behalf of the appellants that,
the Tribunal has not awarded the just and adequate
compensation under the head of loss of love and affection
and has also not awarded any amount towards the funeral
expenses. In my opinion, the impugned award needs to be
modified on these counts.
60-01FA.doc
11) As has come on the record and as has been
proved by the original claimants, deceased Chandrakant
was receiving salary to the tune of Rs.1,600/- per month.
After deducting one half of the said amount towards the
personal expenses, it has to be assumed that deceased
must be spending the remaining amount on the welfare of
his parents and younger brother. The claimants therefore
deceased
said to be depending to that extent on the income of
Chandrakant. The claimants are therefore
entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- (800 x 12 =
9600 x 18 = 1,72,800). I further deem it appropriate to
enhance the amount of Rs.4,000/- granted by the Tribunal
towards the loss of love and affection to Rs.20,000/-. I am
also inclined to award the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the
funeral expenses. The compensation amount in total thus,
comes to Rs. 2,02,000/- (1,72,800 + 20,000 + 10,000 =
2,02,000/-). Deducting 50% of the said amount, the
claimants are entitled to receive the sum of Rs.1,01,000/-
jointly and severally from the respondent nos.1 and 2.
12) In the result, I hold the claimants entitled to
receive the aforesaid amount of enhanced compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,01,000/- jointly and severally from
60-01FA.doc
respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 with the interest
thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till its realization. The impugned Award
stands modified to the above extent. Modified Award be
prepared accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent with proportionate costs.
ig ( P.R.Bora )
Judge
SPR
