Bombay High Court
Dashrath Rangnath Gadhave vs Malan Ramdas Kande And Ors on 29 August, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13935 OF 2016
Dashrath s/o Rangnath Gadhave,
Age : 58 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o Waruda, Tq:Dist:Osmanabad,
... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.1)
VERSUS
1. Malan w/o Ramdas Kande,
Age : 32 years, Occu : Household,
2. Pratik s/o Ramdas Kande,
Age : Major, Occu : education,
3. Prashant Ramdas Kande,
Age : Major, Occu : education,
4. Mahesh Ramdas Kande,
Age : 13 years, Occu : education,
Through its guardian Mother,
Malan w/o Ramdas Kande,
The Respondent No.1.
5. Apparao s/o Babu Kande,
Age : 70 years, Occu : Nil,
6. Kadubai w/o Apparao Kande,
Age : 68 years, Occu : Nil,
All the Respondent No. 1 to 6
are the Resident of Hiwarda,
Tq.Bhoom,Dist.Osmanabad... Ori.Claimants
7. The United India Insurance Co.
Ltd,Through its Branch Manager,
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
2 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
Minakshi Lodge Building, Near
SBI, Osmanabad,Tq:Dist.Osmanabad.
... Respondents
Shri.S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant;
Shri.A. S. More ,Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 6;
Shri V. R. Mundada., Advocate for Resp.No.7.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3473 OF 2016
1. Malan w/o Ramdas Kande,
Age : 33 years, Occu : Household,
2. Pratik s/o Ramdas Kande,
Age : 17 years, Occu : Education,
U/g. Of appellant no.1.
3. Prashant s/o Ramdas Kande,
Age : 17 years, Occu : Education,
U/g. Of appellant no.1.
4. Mahesh Ramdas Kande,
Age : 12 years, Occu : Education,
U/g. Of appellant no.1.
5. Apparao s/o Babu Kande,
Age : 71 years, Occu : Nil,
6. Kadubai w/o Apparao Kande,
Age : 69 years, Occu : Nil,
All R/o Hiwarda, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANTS/
(Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. Dashrath s/o Rangnath Gadave,
Age : Major, Occu.: Business,
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
3 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
R/o Warud, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.
2. The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Through it's Branch Manager,
Minakshi Lodge Building, Near
SBI at Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Opponents)
...
Shri.A. S. More ,Advocate for Appellants;
Shri.S. V. Deshmukh,Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri V. R. Mundada, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
RESERVED ON : 6
th
JULY, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 29
th
AUGUST,2017
JUDGMENT:
1) Since both the appeals are arising out
of the Judgment and Award passed in MACP No.
85/2011 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Osmanabad (for short the Tribunal) decided on 17 th
June, 2013, common arguments were heard by me in
both these appeals and I deem it appropriate to
decide these appeals by a common reasoning.
2) First Appeal No.3473/2016 has been filed
by the original claimants, taking exception to
the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding
4 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
deceased Ramdas Kande to be negligent in the
proportion of 90% in occurrence of the alleged
accident and consequently to hold that there was
no negligence on the part of the deceased in
occurrence of the alleged accident; whereas First
Appeal No.94/2017 is filed by original Respondent
No.1, i.e. original owner of the offending jeep.
It is his contention that though the claimants
had utterly failed in proving the involvement of
the jeep owned by him in occurrence of the
alleged accident, the Tribunal has recorded an
absolute incorrect finding that the said jeep was
involved in the alleged accident.
3) Before adverting to the respective
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties, I deem it
appropriate to narrate the facts in brief of the
alleged occurrence which had given rise for
filing the claim petition.
4) It was the case of the claimants that
5 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
deceased Ramdas Kande, along with one Arun
Sonawane, when was proceeding on motorcycle
towards Pardi from the side of Bhoom, was dashed
by Black-Yellow colour transport jeep, bearing
registration No.MH 25/B.872. It was their
further contention that one Sahebrao Sopan Sarukh
was travelling from the said jeep along with the
other passengers and he made the driver of the
jeep to stop the said jeep after occurrence of
the accident and when he reached on the spot of
the occurrence, noticed that the person, who was
severely injured, was his brother-in-law and he
took him to the hospital along with the injured
pillion rider through S.T.bus and he lodged FIR
of the alleged incident. The claimants,
therefore, preferred the claim petition against
the owner and insurer of the said black-yellow
transport jeep. The said jeep was insured with
Respondent No.2, i.e.United India Insurance
company Ltd.
5) Deceased Ramdas was serving as a driver
6 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
(for short MSRTC) and was drawing monthly salary
to the tune of Rs. 12,000/-. He was in the age
group between 35-40 years. The claimants had,
therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of
Rs. 22,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the
offending jeep.
6) Though the owner of the jeep was duly
served, did not appear in the matter. The
insurance company contested the claim petition on
several grounds. A specific plea was raised by
the insurance company that the offending jeep was
not involved in the alleged accident. The plea
alleging breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy by owner of the vehicle was also
raised by the insurance company for seeking its
exoneration from the liability to indemnify the
insured.
7) In order to substantiate the claim
raised by applicant No.1, i.e. wife of deceased
7 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
Ramdas, viz. Malan, testified before the Court.
The claimants also relied upon the police papers
pertaining to the accident in question. Two
witnesses were examined by the insurance company
in order to support the defence raised by it.
8) The learned Tribunal, after having
assessed the oral and documentary evidence
brought before it, though held that the offending
jeep was involved in the alleged accident and was
duly insured with United India Insurance company
Ltd., held the claimants entitled for only 10% of
the total amount of compensation as assessed by
it from the owner of the offending jeep and
passed further order against the insurance
company to pay the said amount to the claimants
and then recover it from the owner of the
vehicle. The Tribunal recorded a finding that in
occurrence of the alleged accident, 90%
negligence was of the deceased and obviously
therefore, disentitled the claimants from
receiving the said amount.
8 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
9) Aggrieved by the judgment as aforesaid,
the original claimants have filed the appeal as
stated herein above for setting aside the finding
as about the negligence on part of the deceased;
whereas the original owner has also filed the
appeal, disputing the very involvement of his
Jeep in occurrence of the alleged accident.
10) First I would like to deal with the
contentions raised in the appeal filed by the
owner of the offending jeep.
11) Shri S.V.Deshmukh, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, assailed the
impugned Judgment and Award mainly on the ground
that the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding
the jeep owned by him to be an offending vehicle
and holding its involvement in occurrence of the
alleged accident is wholly unsustainable. The
learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has
utterly failed in appreciating that though the
alleged accident had happened on 18th October,
9 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
2010, the FIR in that regard came to be lodged
after long lapse of two days, i.e. on 20th
October, 2010. The learned Counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal has further failed in
appreciating that the claimants did not bring on
record any evidence to prove the involvement of
the offending jeep in occurrence of the alleged
accident. The learned counsel further submitted
that merely on the basis of one statement,
recorded by the police during the course of
investigation pertaining to the alleged accident,
the tribunal has answered the issue in
affirmative that the jeep in question was
involved in the accident and that the same was
the offending vehicle.
12) The learned Counsel, taking me through
the evidence on record and more particularly, the
statements recorded of the witnesses during the
course of investigation submitted that from such
evidence, in no case, a conclusion can be drawn
that the jeep owned by the appellant was involved
10 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
in the alleged accident. The learned Counsel
submitted that the evidence on record clearly
demonstrates that the jeep owned by the appellant
was falsely involved in the alleged accident.
The learned Counsel submitted that in the
discussion made in the judgment, the Tribunal,
though, has doubted the involvement of the jeep
in occurrence of the alleged accident, eventually
has recorded a contrary finding holding the
involvement of the jeep to have been proved by
the claimants. The learned Counsel, therefore,
prayed for setting aside the said finding
recorded by the tribunal and consequently to
dismiss the claim petition against him.
13) Shri A.S.More, learned Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.1 to 6, i.e. original
claimants, supported the finding recorded by the
Tribunal as about the involvement of the
offending jeep in occurrence of the alleged
accident. The learned Counsel submitted that the
ample evidence was adduced by the claimants to
11 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
prove the involvement of the offending jeep in
occurrence of the alleged accident and the
Tribunal has correctly appreciated the said
evidence and no interference is required in the
finding recorded by the Tribunal in that regard.
The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
14) Shri V.R.Mundada, learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2, insurance company,
submitted that the finding recorded by the
Tribunal in regard to involvement of the jeep in
occurrence of the alleged accident, is
unsustainable. The learned Counsel submitted
that the insurance company had in its written
statement seriously disputed the involvement of
the jeep in occurrence of the alleged accident
and has also led the evidence in that regard.
15) I have considered the submissions made
on behalf of learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties. I have perused the impugned
12 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
judgment and the entire evidence on record. At
the outset, it has to be stated that despite
being duly served with the notice of the claim
petition, present appellant did not appear before
the Tribunal and the claim petition was proceeded
exparte against him. In the present appeal, the
appellant has not provided any explanation as to
why he did not appear before the Tribunal, when,
according to him, the vehicle owned by him, was
not at all involved in the alleged accident. A
note has also to be taken that though the
impugned Judgment and Award was passed on 17 th
June, 2013, the appellant did not prefer any
appeal against the said Judgment and Award till
2016. The record reveals that delay of 1,108
days has been caused in filing the present appeal
by the appellant, the fact apart that the same
has been condoned by this Court.
16) The material on record reveals that in
order to substantiate the contentions raised in
the claim petition, claimant No.1, viz. Malan
13 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
Ramdas Kande, deposed before the Court and that
was the only oral evidence adduced on behalf of
the claimants. The claimants have, however,
placed on record the certified copies of the
police papers pertaining to the accident in
question, which contain the FIR, spot panchanama,
inquest panchanama, post mortem report and the
copies of the statements recorded by the police
during the course of investigation of the crime
registered pertaining to the alleged accident.
The copy of the final charge sheet is also placed
on record by the claimants.
17) As has been argued by the learned
Counsel for the appellants, in absence of any
cogent explanation as to why the FIR could not be
lodged for two days when according to his own
statement, the informant was well aware of the
fact, that the jeep was involved in the alleged
accident, reasonable doubts are created as about
the involvement of the said Jeep in occurrence of
the alleged accident. The learned Counsel
14 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
submitted that the informant is the brother in
law of the deceased and more importantly is a
lawyer by profession. According to the learned
Counsel, it therefore does not appear probable
that he would not promptly lodge the F.I.R. if
there was another vehicle involved in the alleged
accident.
18) The learned Counsel further submitted
that the statement recorded of the driver of the
ST bus, by which deceased and injured were
carried to the hospital, if perused, would reveal
that the people on the spot of occurrence had
not, in any way, disclosed or alleged at the
relevant time that any jeep was involved in the
occurrence of the alleged accident. The learned
Counsel submitted that had it been the fact that
some other vehicle was involved in the alleged
accident, it would have been certainly disclosed
by the persons assembled on the spot. The
learned Counsel submitted that if the statements
of Ashok Vitthal Tipe and Rajendra Sambhaji
15 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
Chandre are perused, who according to the
informant - Sahebrao Sarukh, were co-passengers
along with him in the jeep and they all had
alighted from the jeep along with him and had
simultaneously visited the spot of occurrence,
none of them has deposed before the Court that
the deceased was identified by informant Sahebrao
on the spot of occurrence and that he was the
brother in law of said Sahebrao. The learned
Counsel submitted that when both these witnesses
have stated the fact that the driver of the bus
through which deceased was carried to the
hospital identified the deceased to be the ST
driver, the earlier fact that the deceased was
identified by informant Sahebrao to be his
brother in law could not have been missed by them
while giving their statements to the police or
while testifying before the Court. According to
the learned Counsel, the said circumstance,
creates doubt about the FIR lodged by the
informant Sahebrao.
16 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
19) The learned Counsel submitted that the
injured viz. Anil Sonawane was speaking when he
was being taken by a ST bus to the hospital,
however, he also did not disclose to the persons
in the bus or to the driver or conductor of the
said ST bus that one jeep gave them a dash and
fled away from the spot of occurrence. According
to the learned Counsel, such conduct is also
improbable and, therefore, such evidence cannot
be depended upon. The learned Counsel further
submitted that the statement of Sangram Sharad
Gadekar also cannot be a base for reaching to the
conclusion that the jeep owned by him was
involved in the alleged accident. The learned
Counsel submitted that in absence of any such
evidence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding
that the jeep owned by him was the offending
vehicle and that it was involved in the
occurrence of the alleged accident.
20) I am, however, not convinced with the
arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. In so
17 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
far as the delay in lodging the FIR by the
informant is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly
discussed that the evidence on record
sufficiently indicates that there was a confusion
as about the location of the spot of occurrence
for registering the FIR either at police station
Bhooom or at police station Washi. One such
document is existing on record which indicates
that since the deceased and injured were taken to
the hospital at Bhoom, the inquest panchanama etc
were recorded by the police officer attached to
Bhoom police station, but, subsequently, the case
papers were transferred to police station Washi
for the further investigation since the spot of
occurrence was falling within the jurisdiction of
Washi police station. In the circumstances,
finding of fact was recorded by the Tribunal in
Para 11 of the impugned judgment that there was a
dispute relating to the boundary or the area,
where the spot was located between two police
stations. From the facts so recorded and in
absence of any contrary evidence, it can be
18 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
reasonably inferred that the same may be a reason
for the delay, which has occurred in lodging the
FIR.
21) The material on record further reveals
that thereafter the police station officer at
Washi recorded the statements of Ashok Tipe,
Rajendra Sambhaji Chandre and Sangram Sharad
Gadekar. Witnesses Ashok Tipe and Rajendra
Chandre, both have deposed about the involvement
of the jeep in occurrence of the alleged
accident. As per their statements, they were
travelling by the said jeep at the relevant time.
These witnesses have corroborated the facts, as
are stated by the informant Sahebrao in his
report lodged with the police station Washi. The
contents of the FIR reveal that at the relevant
time, Ashok Tipe and Rajendra Chandre were also
travelling by the said jeep along with the
informant. In absence of any contrary evidence,
I see no reason for discarding the said evidence.
Though it is true that these witnesses were not
19 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
examined by the claimants before the Tribunal,
mere non-examination of the said witnesses will
not be fatal for the case of the claimants. The
claimants had relied upon the police papers
pertaining to the accident in question and the
aforesaid statements were forming part of the
charge sheet filed against the driver of the
offending jeep.
22) Son of the present appellant was driving
the jeep when the alleged accident happened and
the record shows that he has been prosecuted in
relation to the said accident. The appellant has
not produced on record any document to show
whether the said criminal case is still pending
or disposed of and if disposed of whether his son
has been convicted or has been acquitted from the
said case and more importantly what was the
defence by his son Manoj in the said case. In
absence of any contrary evidence brought on
record, merely because the FIR was lodged
belatedly and that the ST driver did not disclose
20 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
that the jeep was involved in the alleged
accident, it is difficult to reach to any such
conclusion that the alleged jeep was not at all
involved in the occurrence of the alleged
accident.
23) Even if the statement of Sangram Gadekar
is perused, who happens to be witness on the spot
of occurrence, he has informed to the police that
one black-yellow jeep coming from the side of
Bhoom in excessive speed, gave dash to the
motorcycle. He has further stated that the jeep
did not stop at the spot, but stopped at some
distance and 3 persons alighted from the jeep and
reached to the spot of occurrence and further
that the persons, who alighted from the said
jeep, lifted the injured persons from the spot of
occurrence and removed them to the side of the
road. Though the further part in his statement
that he subsequently came to know the number of
the jeep and about name of the jeep, is ignored,
the earlier facts stated by the said witness duly
21 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
corroborate the version of the informant as well
as other two witnesses, whose statements were
recorded by the police, viz. Ashok Tipe and
Rajendra Chandre.
24) After having considered the evidence on
record, it does not appear to me that any error
has been committed by the Tribunal in recording a
finding that the jeep bearing No.MH.25/B.872 was
involved in the occurrence of the alleged
accident. I, therefore, do not see any reason
for setting aside the said finding.
25) I reiterate that the appellant has not
challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal
on the other issues framed by it as about the
breach of the policy conditions, percentage of
negligence on part of the deceased and the final
amount determined to be payable to the claimants
as compensation.
22 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
FA NO. 3473/2016
26) Present appeal is filed by the
claimants. Though the imugned judgment is
challenged by the claimants on various grounds,
the only objection, which was pressed in the
arguments was that the Tribunal has manifestly
erred in recording a finding that in occurrence
of the alleged accident, negligence on part of
the deceased motorcyclist was to the extent of
90%.
27) The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants-claimants submitted that the vehicles
involved in the alleged accident were coming from
the opposite direction of each other and it is,
therefore, evident that it was a head-on-
collision accident. The learned counsel submitted
that in the case of head on collision accident,
the proportion of negligence is ordinarily equal
on part of both the vehicles. The learned Counsel
submitted that in the present matter, the
Tribunal has, however, wrongly held the
23 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
negligence on part of the deceased to the ex-
tent of 90% without any such evidence there for.
The learned Counsel submitted that since the
another vehicle involved in the alleged accident,
i.e. the jeep, which gave dash to the motorcycle,
was not available on the spot, the spot
panchanama has not been properly prepared and the
location of the vehicles on the spot have also
not been properly indicated. The learned Counsel
submitted that from the evidence on record, a
reasonable inference can be drawn that the jeep
coming from the opposite direction, was being
driven in rash and negligent manner and it gave a
dash to the motorcycle at its front.
28) The learned Counsel submitted that the
impact was so heavy that the motorcycle was
extensively damaged. The learned counsel further
submitted that moreover, the informant himself
was travelling by the said jeep and he has
deposed that the jeep was being driven in rash
and negligent manner and it gave dash to the
24 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
motorcycle coming from the opposite direction.
The learned Counsel submitted that without there
being any contrary evidence, merely relying upon
the spot panchanama the tribunal has incorrectly
held the deceased motorcyclist negligent to the
ex tent of 90% in causing the alleged accident.
29) The learned counsel submitted that in
fact the evidence on record clearly suggests that
the alleged accident happened due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the jeep and no blame
could have been attributed on part of the
deceased motorcyclist. The learned counsel,
therefore, prayed for setting aside the finding
recorded by the Tribunal as regards to the extent
of negligence on part the deceased motorcyclist
in occurrence of the alleged accident and to hold
that the alleged accident happened because of the
absolute negligence on part of the driver of the
offending jeep. The learned counsel further
prayed that consequently, the entire amount of
compensation as assessed by the Tribunal shall be
25 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
jointly and severally made payable by the
respondents i.e. owner and insurer of the
offending jeep.
30) The learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1, opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the appellants. The learned Counsel
submitted that Respondent No.1 has denied the
very involvement of the jeep in the alleged
accident. The learned Counsel submitted that
Respondent No.1, has, therefore, filed
independent appeal for setting aside the finding
recorded by the Tribunal as about the involvement
of the jeep owned by him in occurrence of the
alleged accident. The learned Counsel
alternatively submitted that the spot panchanama
has been relied upon by the claimants themselves
and in such circumstances, relying upon the
averments in the spot panchanama as well as the
sketch attached to the spot panchanama, if the
Tribunal has recorded such finding, no
interference can be caused in the finding of fact
26 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
as recorded by the Tribunal. The learned
Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
31) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants
as well as on behalf of the respondents. In the
discussion made by me while deciding First Appeal
No.94/2017, I have referred to the evidence in
regard to the spot panchanama. It has to be
stated that the claimants had also relied upon
the spot panchanama and the same has been filed
on record by the claimants themselves. As is the
case of the claimants and as was testified by
claimant No.1 - Malan Kande in her testimony
before the Court, deceased Ramdas was proceeding
towards Bhoom on his motorcycle from the side of
Pardi. Pardi is towards north side, whereas
Bhoom is towards southern side. The road by
which the deceased was proceeding was thus north
to south. Since the deceased was proceeding from
north to south, he was supposed to be on the
27 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
eastern side of the road which was his left side.
According to the version of the claimants, the
offending jeep was proceeding towards Pardi. The
jeep was, therefore, required to be on the
western side of the road. Now, it will be useful
to see the sketch of the spot of occurrence, as
has been drawn while preparing the spot
panchanama. It is not in dispute that the spot
of occurrence was shown by Sahebrao Sarukh, who
has lodged FIR in the matter. The sketch, as has
been prepared and which is the part of spot
panchanama, shows the spot of occurrence at the
western end of the north south Bhoom Pardi road.
Having regard to the spot of occurrence, there
remains no doubt that deceased motorcyclist, who
was supposed to drive his motorcycle from the
eastern side of the said road or keeping safe
margin from the midst of the road at his side,
had completely entered on the wrong side and
dashed with the jeep coming from Bhoom and
proceeding towards Pardi. The sketch
demonstrates that the jeep was being driven from
28 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
its correct side. It also does not appear that
the jeep was being driven from the center of the
road or had entered on the wrong side. Having
considered all these circumstances, the Tribunal
has recorded a finding that in occurrence of the
alleged accident, greater negligence was on part
of the motorcyclist and has, therefore,
determined the proportion of the said negligence
to the extent of 90%.
32) Though it was sought to be canvassed on
behalf of the claimants that in the spot
panchanama, the spot of accident has been wrongly
shown at the western end of the road, the
contention so raised cannot be accepted in view
of the fact that the spot of occurrence was shown
by Sahebrao Sarukh, who according to the
claimants, was an eye-witness to the alleged
accident, and who had filed FIR of the said
accident. Said Sahebrao was present on the spot
when the spot panchanama was prepared. Having
considered the evidence, as aforesaid, I do not
29 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
see any reason to cause any interference in the
finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal
and the objection raised by the complainants in
this regard is liable to be rejected.
33) Further, an objection was raised by the
learned Counsel for the Claimants that while
determining the amount of compensation the
tribunal has not followed the guidelines, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma. However, the objection so raised
also appears to be without any substance. As has
come on record the deceased was drawing a monthly
salary of Rs.9,000/-. While determining the
amount of compensation, the Tribunal has duly
considered the future prospects of the deceased
and has accordingly given incremental enhancement
in his monthly income to the tune of Rs.3,000/-
per month and has held his salary to the tune of
Rs.12,000/- per month for determining the amount
of dependency compensation. Further, having
regard to the number of dependents, the Tribunal
30 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
has rightly deducted 1/4th of the total income of
the deceased towards his personal expenses. It
further does not appear to me that the tribunal
has committed any error in awarding the sum of
Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection and
RS.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. It
therefore, does not appear to me that the
Tribunal has committed any error in determining
the amount of compensation.
34) After having considered the entire
material on record, I do not find any substance
in the appeal so preferred. No interference is
therefore warranted in the impugned Judgment and
Award. The Appeal being devoid any substance,
deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the
following order is passed.
ORDER
i) First Appeal No.94 of 2017 and
First Appeal No.3473 of 2016, both stand
31 FA 94/2017 & 3473/16
dismissed, however without any order as
to the costs. Pending Civil
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
fldr 28.8.17
