Bombay High Court
Shobhabai Gulabrao Tayde And Anr vs M.S.R.T.C. Through ... on 6 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.632/2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.632/2001
1) Shobabai w/o Gulabrao Tayde
Age: 42 Yrs., occu. Household,
R/o Wanoja, Tq. Risod,
At present Mangalwara, Hingoli,
Tq. Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli.
2) Amit s/o Gulabrao Tayde,
Age: 17 Yrs., minor,
u/g real mother -
Shobabai w/o Gulabrao Tayde
Age: 42 Yrs., occu. Household,]
R/o as above. = APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1) Maharshtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Through its
Divisional Controller,
Sangakhed Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
2) Shaikh Ibrahim s/o Shaikh Amir,
Age:42 Yrs., occu. Driver,
Batch No. 4303, ST Depot,
Hingoli, R/o Tofkhana, Hingoli,
District Hingoli. = RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr.BS Kudale, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr.Anand Wange,Adv for Respondent No.1.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
th
DATE :
6 April,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Original claimants have filed
2 FA NO.632/2001
the present appeal taking exception to the
Judgment and Award dated 6th May, 2001 passed
in MACP No.236/2000 by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli (for short,
the Tribunal). The appellants are seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation and
modification of the Award to that extent.
2) The aforesaid Claim Petition was
filed by the appellants seeking compensation,
being legal representatives of deceased
Gulabrao Tayde, who died in a vehicular
accident happened on 12th June, 1998 having
involvement of ST bus bearing registration No.
MH-20-D-1242. The appellants had claimed the
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. As stated in
the Claim Petition, on the date of the
accident, age of the deceased was 46 years and
he was drawing monthly salary to the tune of
Rs.5,660/-. By adducing the evidence before
the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants duly
3 FA NO.632/2001
proved the salary income of the deceased.
Though age of the deceased was stated to be 46
years, from the documentary evidence it was
revealed that at the time of his death, age of
deceased Gulabrao was 52 years. The learned
Tribunal holding the income of the deceased to
the tune of Rs.5,660/- per month, by applying
the multiplier of 6, assessed the compensation
to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/-, payable to the
appellants/claimants and awarded the same
accordingly with interest thereon @ Rs. 9%
p.a.
3) In the present appeal, the impugned
award is challenged only on the ground that
the Tribunal has grossly erred in applying the
multiplier of 6. The learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants submitted that
having regard to the age of the deceased to be
52 years at the time of his death, the
Tribunal must have applied the multiplier of
4 FA NO.632/2001
11 and accordingly must have assessed the
compensation.
4) I have gone through Para 11 of the
impugned Award. The learned Tribunal has
observed that the period of only six years was
left for retirement of the deceased and on
that basis the learned Tribunal has assessed
the compensation by applying the multiplier of
6. It is thus evident that the learned
Tribunal has applied wrong multiplier. The
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amrit Bhanu
Shali and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
And Ors. - (2012) 11 SCC 738, has held that
the selection of multiplier in a death case
must be on the basis of age of the deceased
and age of dependents has no nexus with the
computation of the compensation. Considering
the age of deceased Gulabrao to be 52 years,
the appropriate multiplier in the present case
5 FA NO.632/2001
, as prescribed in the case of Sarla verma
(Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr. - (2009) 6 SCC 121, will be of 11.
Even in 2nd Schedule under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier prescribed
for the age group of 51-55 years is 11. So in
no case, the learned Tribunal should have
applied the multiplier of 6.
5) The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents/Corporation has conceded that
considering the age of the deceased, the
Tribunal must have applied the multiplier of
11 for assessing the amount of compensation.
Thus, the impugned Award to that extent needs
to be modified. By applying the multiplier of
11, the compensation amount comes to Rs.
4,98,080/-. I hold the claimants entitled for
the said amount. The appeal is thus partly
allowed and the impugned Award is modified to
the aforesaid extent. Except the modification
6 FA NO.632/2001
in the amount of compensation, the other
portion of the the impugned judgment and Award
shall remain unchanged. Modified Award be
prepared accordingly. Pending civil
application, if any, stands disposed of.
sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
ig JUDGE
bdv/
