Asaram Maroti Raut vs Somnath Murlidhar Pavbake & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7191 Bom

                                           1                              21 fa 1184.04.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                            
                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2004




                                                   
            Asaram s/o Maroti Raut,
            Age: 47 years, Occ: Clerk,




                                                  
            R/o 15-Chari, Rahata,
            Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.                           ...Appellant

                     Vs.




                                        
    1.      Somnath s/o Murlidhar Pavbake,
            Age: 45 years, Occ. Business,
                             
            R/o Pavbaki, Tq. Sangamner,
            Dist. Ahmednagar.
                            
    2.    The United India Insurance
          Company Ltd.,
          Market Yard, Opp. Bus Stand,
          Ahmednagar, Tq.& Dist. Ahmednagar.
          Through Manager                                           ...Respondents
      


                                     ----
    Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant.
   



    Mr. Atul B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                     ----

                                               CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

DATE : 14-12-2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement in the

amount of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal at Kopargaon in M.A.C.P. No. 595 of 2002 decided on

31/03/2004.

2. The aforesaid petition was filed by the present appellant

seeking compensation on account of the death of his son namely

Mahesh who died in a vehicular accident on 26.03.2002, having

2 21 fa 1184.04.odt

involvement of a TempO bearing registration No. MH-17-K-5200,

owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. As

stated in the claim petition deceased Mahesh was 18 years old at

the time of his death. It was the contention of the present appellant

that, his son was the only support in his old age and he was

depending upon him. The claim petition was resisted by the

insurance company on several grounds. The tribunal, partly allowed

the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rupees One Lakh towards

compensation to the present appellant. Aggrieved by, the appellant

has filed the present appeal.

3. Shri M.R. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant submitted that, the tribunal has erred in applying the

multiplier of 10 while determining the amount of compensation. The

learned counsel submitted that, according to the age of deceased

the appropriate multiplier would have been of 18, whereas, if the

age of the appellant is considered the multiplier of 14 must have

been applied. The learned counsel submitted that, even if it is

considered that, the multiplier depending upon the age of the

appellant is to be applied, the tribunal has certainly erred in

applying the multiplier of 10. The learned counsel further submitted

that, while determining the amount of compensation, the tribunal

has also erred in holding the income of the deceased to the tune of

Rs.1500/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that, it was

specifically deposed by the appellant that, deceased was earning

3 21 fa 1184.04.odt

around Rs.2,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the

tribunal must have determined the amount of compensation holding

the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month.

The learned counsel further submitted that, the tribunal also erred

in awarding a very meager amount towards funeral expenses, as

well as, towards love and affection and towards the other

miscellaneous expenses. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for

enhancement in the amount of compensation.

4.

Shri Atul B. Gatne, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent no.2 i.e. insurance company resisted the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel

submitted that, the tribunal has passed a well reasoned order and

no interference is required in the impugned judgment and award.

The learned counsel submitted that, in fact, the father cannot be

held to be a dependent on the income of the son. The learned

counsel submitted that, even according to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma, the father cannot

be held to be dependent upon the income of a son. Learned counsel

submitted that, in view of the fact that, the amount of

compensation awarded was small one, the insurance company find

it appropriate not to prefer any appeal. The learned counsel further

submitted that, as per the prevailing circumstances, the tribunal

has awarded adequate amount towards the non-pecuniary

damages. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of

4 21 fa 1184.04.odt

the appeal.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is

true that, the impugned judgment and award has not been

challenged by the insurance company. In so far as the legal issues

which are raised by the appellant as about the application of the

multiplier and the award of non-pecuniary damages are concerned

both the grounds deserve to be considered. In so far as the point

urged as about the income of the deceased, I see no reason to

cause interference in the observations made by the tribunal and

ultimate conclusion recorded by the tribunal. Since there was no

cogent and sufficient evidence as about the income of the deceased

no fault can be found, if the tribunal has assessed the amount of

compensation holding the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.

1500/- per month.

6. In so far as application of multiplier is concerned, it

appears that, the tribunal has committed an error in applying the

multiplier. Having regard to the age of the present appellant the

appropriate multiplier would be of 14. By applying the said

multiplier the amount of dependency compensation comes to Rs.

1,68,000/-. I hold the appellant entitled for the said amount under

the aforesaid head. The compensation as awarded by the tribunal

under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses is

5 21 fa 1184.04.odt

undoubtedly meagre, I enhance the said amount to Rs. 32,000/-

and, accordingly, I hold the appellant entitled for the total

compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs. In the facts and circumstances

of the case, it appears to me that, this will be the just and fair

compensation payable to the appellant and the impugned award

needs to be modified to the aforesaid extent. It be accordingly

modified. The enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the

present appellant along with the interest accrued thereon @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the present appeal till its

realisation. Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

mub