Sakharbai Baliram Sangale & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6696 Bom

                                             1                       FA No.837/2002

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.837 OF 2002




                                                     
      1)       Sakharbai Baliram Sangale
               Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Nil
               R/o Mhalsabai Hiware, 




                                                    
               Tq.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

      2)       Baliram Shivram Sangale
               (deceased) as dead deleted
               vide Exh.26                            =    APPELLANTS




                                      
                                                      (orig. Claimants)

               VERSUS        
      1)       National Insurance Company
               Ltd. Through its'
                            
               Branch Manager, Nationalized
               Insurance Co. Ltd. Ahmednagar.

               (appeal stood dismissed as
                against Resp.Nos.2 & 3 vide
      

                Registrar's order dt. 
                2.12.2003)                  =                  RESPONDENTS 
   



                                   -----
      Mr.RK Temkar, Advocate for Appellants;

      Mr.RC   Bora,   Adv.   h/for   Mr.   PP   Bafna,   Adv.   for 





      Respondent No.1.
                                 -----
                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

25 th

November,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard Shri Temkar, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant. The appellant has

filed the present appeal taking exception to the

Judgment and Award dated 9th April, 2002 passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar (for

short, the Tribunal) in MACP No.457/1995. The

Tribunal, vide the impugned Judgment and Award

has awarded the compensation to the tune of

Rs.1,18,600/- inclusive of NFL compensation

together with the interest thereon @ 9% p.a.

jointly and severally from the owner and insurer

of the vehicle involved in the accident. The

present appeal is filed seeking enhancement in

the amount of compensation so awarded by the

Tribunal.

2. The learned Counsel submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the

deceased to the tune of Rs.40/- per day, i.e.

Rs.1,200/- per month when sufficient evidence was

adduced to show that the deceased was earning Rs.

1500 per month. The learned Counsel further

submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded the

just and adequate compensation towards pecuniary

damages.

3) The learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent insurance company submits that the

Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order and no

interference is required in the Judgment and

Award so passed.

4) I have carefully perused the impugned

Judgment and Award. Apparently, I do not see any

reason to cause interference in the Judgment and

Award so passed. Though it was the contention of

the appellant that the deceased was earning

around Rs.1,500/- per month, no cogent and

sufficient evidence was adduced to prove the

same. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has

rightly held the income of the deceased on

notional basis to the tune of Rs.1,200/- per

month and has accordingly awarded the

compensation.

5) It is further revealed that in fact when

50% of the total income should have been deducted

by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses of

the deceased, since he was bachelor, the Tribunal

has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and

has accordingly determined the amount of

dependency compensation. In so far as non-

pecuniary damages are concerned, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, is in consonance with

the legal position prevailing at the relevant

time. No interference is threrfore required in

the amount of compensation so determined.

6) After having considered the entire

material on record, it does not appear to me that

the Tribunal has committed any error in passing

the impugned Judgment and Award. The appeal,

being devoid of any merit, deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however

without any order as to the costs.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/