Bombay High Court
Pramilabai Murlidhar @ Bhaskar ... vs Shaikh Aslam Shaikh Shabbir And ... on 26 August, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
1 FA 2654/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2654 OF 2015
1 Pramilabai W/o Murlidhar @ Bhaskar APPELLANTS
Sadbhave, Aged 44 Years, Occupation
Household, Resident of Shivaji Chauk, At
Post Village Pal, Taluka Phulambri, District
Aurangabad
2
Murlidhar @ Bhaskar S/o Shridhar
Sadbhave, Aged 57 Years, Occupation Nil,
Resident of as above
3 Sandeep S/o Murlidhar @ Bhaskar
Sadbhave, Aged 30 Years, Occupation
Driver, resident of as above
V E R S U S
1 Shaikh Aslam S/o Shaikh Shabbir, Aged RESPONDENTS
Major, Occupation Driver, Resident of
Mategaon village, Post Kasabkheda, Taluka
Kannad, District Aurangabad
AND
ABR Transport Company, Mondha, Post,
Taluka and District Aurangabad
2 Mustakbhai S/o Najirbhai Shaikh, Aged
Major, Occupation Business, Resident of Plot
No. 12, Near Krishna Park Society, Santosh
Nagar, Channi Road, At Post Taluka and
District Baroda, State Gujrat
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:21:29 :::
2 FA 2654/2015
3 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office,
Near R.C. Bafna Jewelers, Shriram Chits
Maharashtra Ltd. Bagla Chambers, II Floor,
Opp. S.F.S. High School, C.T.S. No. 12484,
At Post Taluka and District Aurangabad
Mr. Saneep B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Patel Sameer F., Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 absent
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
ig CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 26th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By consent of the learned counsel for the Appellants and
learned counsel for Respondent No.3, this appeal is taken up for final
hearing. Heard finally.
4. This is a Claimants' Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded on account of death of their son in a motor
accident.
5. The appellants are challenging the correctness of Judgment
and Award in M.A.C.P. No. 402 of 2011 dated 18 th January, 2014, passed
by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad.
3 FA 2654/2015
6. The case reflected in the pleadings of the appellants is that
their son Manoj died on 23 rd February, 2011, in a motor accident, on a
public road. He was one of the passengers of a Motor-Car, which suffered
collision with a truck resulting into Manoj's death and other casualties.
The appellants contended that Manoj was in a private service and was
getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In the petition, they did not
mention as to with whom Manoj was working. At the time of recording
evidence, appellant no. 1 entered the witness-box and stated on oath that
Manoj was working with one Subhash as Driver-cum-Assistant for
Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Member however discarded this part
of the evidence. He held that the depositions of the above referred
witnesses are not reliable mainly because Subhash did not give
particulars of the amount which he paid as salary. Besides in the
pleadings, name of the employer was not mentioned though it was a
statutory requirement. The learned Member came to a conclusion that
Manoj's notional income was Rs.3,000/- per month and then on the basis
of such figure, calculation was made.
7. The first question that arose for my consideration is, whether
appellants would prove that Manoj was a salary earner and was getting
salary of Rs.4,000/- per month? Having gone through the evidence and
other documents that are annexed to the record and proceedings, I have
no doubt in my mind that the witnesses referred above are not lying about
status of Manoj as Driver-cum-Assistant of witness Subhash. It is not a
case as asserted by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 that the
appellants tried to fill-up a gap at the time of 11 th year at the time of
recording of evidence. Since beginning they came with a plea that Manoj
4 FA 2654/2015
was a salary earner and was working. Even, though they did not provide
the name of the employer, it cannot be said that their case that Manoj was
a salary earner is false. More particulars about Manoj's employment were
supplied at the time of recording of evidence. In a case of this nature, the
evidence is required to be appreciated in the circumstances of the case.
Assuming there is no documentary proof that Manoj was working as
Driver-cum-Assistant of witness Subhash, one must look at other
circumstances.
8.
Admittedly, Manoj had a driving licence. Manoj admittedly
was not related to Subhash in whose Car he was traveling at the time of
incident. Manoj was only 23 years old and would certainly not sit at home
without a job. There was thus possibility that Manoj would work and with
the help of his driving skills, he would work as a driver on a private vehicle.
Such a young man would eventually hope to get proper job as driver either
with Government or in a Company where he would have security for the
job. I am therefore inclined to believe the evidence of the witnesses,
referred to above. I hold that Manoj was earing Rs.4,000/- per month as
salary.
9. As regards the future prospect, the learned counsel for
respondent no. 3-Insurance Company tried to suggest that the Supreme
Court has referred the issue of the future prospect of Larger Bench and
therefore I should not award any compensation under the head of future
prospect. He also pointed out that there is no pleading about future
prospect etc. But, I do not agree with these submissions. There is settled
law that the compensation on account of future prospect is payable in
5 FA 2654/2015
certain cases and this appears to be such case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants also asserted that the
compensation on account of future prospect of Manoj is also required to
be awarded to the appellants. If the Court comes to the conclusion that
Manoj was earing salary, then there was always possibility that Manoj was
trying to make progress in his career as driver and had a better future. In
other words, even as a Driver-cum-Assistant, Manoj had future prospect to
rise in his life and to secure a better employment. In this case, Manoj was
only 23 years old, therefore, the appellants are entitled to 50% as addition
to actual salary. In view of this, I am inclined to calculate the
compensation as under and proceed to pass the following order :-
O R D E R
(1) The First Appeal stands allowed.
(2) The claimants are entitled to get Rs.3,000 X 12 X 18 =
Rs.6,48,000/-. In addition to this amount, whatever is
awarded by the learned Member would remain intact.
(3) The Award be amended accordingly.
( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
srm/26/8/[email protected]?
6 FA 2654/2015
