Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Haribhau Mate vs Shri Anees Ahamad S/O Majeed ... on 8 August, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
fa.615.06.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.615 OF 2006
Deleted as per 01] Haribhau s/o Fattuji Mate,
Court's order dated Aged about 55 years, Occu. Nil
18/11/2010.
02] Vijay s/o Haribhau Mate,
Aged about 40 years, Occu. Labourer,
R/o Plot No.40, Indira Nagarm,
Back Side of T.B. Hospital,
Police Station Imamwada, Nagpur. .... Petitioner
-- Versus -
01] Shri Anees Ahamad s/o Majeed Ahamad,
Aged about major, Occupation Owner,
R/o 2, Aradhana Society, Katol Road,
Sadar, Nagpur.
02] The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Panchsheel Cinema Chowk,
Wardha Road, Nagpur. .... Respondents
Shri G.R. Kothari, Adv. h/f Shri V.R. Choudhari, Adv. for the Appellant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Shri B.B. Raipure, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : AUGUST 8, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal is preferred by original claimants
challenging the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:52:29 :::
fa.615.06.jud 2
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Claim Petition No.460/1999 vide
its judgment and award dated 30/11/2002.
02] The brief facts giving rise to present appeal may be
stated as follows :
i. On 08/02/1998 in the evening, Chandrashekhar was
proceeding on motorcycle. When he reached near
Shivaji Science College. Truck No. MH-31-3883 gave a
dashed to his motorcycle. He sustained multiple
injuries and died on the spot.
ii. It is the case of claimants that Chandrashekhar was
serving in the Excise Department and earning
Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to his untimely death,
claimants lost the only source of earning. They
calculated compensation to the extent of Rs.7.50 lacs,
but restricted the same to Rs.3.00 lakhs.
iii. Claim petition came to be resisted by respondents.
Their defence was of total denial. Insurance company
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:52:29 :::
fa.615.06.jud 3
denied its liability on the ground that the driver of
truck was not holding a valid and effective licence.
03] On the rival pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed
issues at Exh.17. Claimants examined Haribhau (since deceased)
as a solitary witness. Reliance was placed on various documents
like F.I.R., spot-panchnama, inquest-panchnama, postmortem
report and insurance policy. Respondents did not examine any
witness in support of their defence.
04] On appreciation of evidence, Tribunal came to the
conclusion that accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of truck driver and in consequence thereof, holding the
respondents jointly and severally liable, awarded compensation
of Rs.80,000/- with 9% interest thereon.
05] Appeal was preferred by original claimants Haribhau
and Kausalayabai. They died after the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal. The present appellant is their son and
brother of deceased Chandrashekhar.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:52:29 :::
fa.615.06.jud 4
06] Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the
impugned judgment and award. Therefore, findings recorded by
the Tribunal regarding cause of accident and the joint and
several liability of respondents have attained finality. Even
otherwise, the same is based on evidence on record, which is
found to be appreciated properly by the Tribunal.
07] In the above background, only point that arises for
consideration in the present appeal is whether compensation
awarded by Tribunal is just, fair and adequate or it calls for
enhancement as claimed by appellants.
08] Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that
deceased was 20 years old and serving in Excise Department.
According to the learned Counsel, multiplier applied by the
Tribunal is not in accordance with the schedule and considering
the age of deceased, multiplier of 16 ought to have been
applied. It is submitted that deceased was unmarried and
parents were dependents on him. Submission is that in view of
dependency of parents and age of deceased, compensation
awarded is on too lower side.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:52:29 :::
fa.615.06.jud 5
09] Per contra, learned Counsel for Insurance Company
supports the judgment and award. It is submitted that Tribunal
has rightly considered the age of parents of deceased and
applied multiplier as per the schedule. Learned Counsel submits
that the sole witness examined on behalf of claimants was not
aware about the nature of work of the deceased. It is submitted
that elder son was looking after the parents and they were not
fully dependents on the deceased. It is submitted that, the
award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the evidence
on record and no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
10] It can be seen from the evidence of Haribhau that at
the relevant time, he was 70 years old. He was examined before
the Tribunal on 28/11/2002. The accident took place in 1998.
Considering the age of claimants and also of the deceased, the
Tribunal applied multiplier of 8 which is applicable as per second
schedule to the victim above 55 years, but not exceeding 60
years. It is evident from the facts elicited in cross-examination
of the witness that present appellant is the elder son. He is
school teacher and he used to give Rs.500/- per month to
Haribhau for maintenance. This indicates that claimants were
not solely dependents on deceased Chandrashekhar. The
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:52:29 :::
fa.615.06.jud 6
Tribunal observed that parents have lost their son and they must
get something by way of compensation. It is in this background
that compensation came to be awarded to the claimants.
11] So far as income of deceased is concerned, claimants
submitted that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In the
absence of evidence, Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- as
yearly income and, after deducting Rs.5,000/- being 1/3 rd
towards personal expenses, calculated the compensation
applying multiplier of 8 and awarded Rs.80,000/- as
compensation.
12] The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
based on the evidence and in the facts and circumstances of the
case amount of compensation awarded is also found just, fair
and reasonable. No interference is thus warranted in this
appeal. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
I. First Appeal No.615 of 2006 stands dismissed.
II. No order as to costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J)
