Bombay High Court
Ashok Rangrao Raut Nd Another vs Vino Shrikrishna Mohod And 2 ... on 27 February, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 FA393.05(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.393/2005
1. Ashok Rangrao Raut, ...APPELLANTS
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
2. Sau. Manda Ashok Raut,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Household work
Both R/o. Nandgaonpeth,
Tah. and District Amravati.
--Versus ---
1. Vinod Shrikrishna Mohod, .RESPONDENT
S
aged 40 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o Borgaon Dharmale, District Amravati.
2. Rajesh Laxminarayan Rathi
Occ. : Vehicle owner
R/0 270, LIC Colony,
Amravati.
3. The New India Insurance Company Limited,
Hotel Seven Hills Buildings, 2nd floor,
Walcut Compound, Amravati.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.A.Jibhakate, Advocate for appellants.
None for respondent nos. 1 and 2, though served.
Shri S.N.Dhanagare, Advocate for respondent no.3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 27.02.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, the said Act), the appellants seek enhancement in the
amount of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
2 FA393.05(J)
Tribunal, Amravati.
2. The appellant are the parents of one Sandeep, who was hit by
Jeep that was owned by respondent no.2 and driven by respondent no.1.
Respondent no.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle. The appellants filed
Claim Petition under Section 166 of the said Act claiming compensation of
Rs.2,40,000/-. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- including the amount of no fault
liability.
3. Shri P.A.Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on a lower side
without taking into consideration the aspect of future prospects of the
deceased. He submitted that though the deceased was a student, the
Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration non-pecuniary loss
as well as the aspect of future prospects while granting compensation. He
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.K.Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others reported in (2009) 14
SCC 1. He, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation deserves
to be enhanced.
3 FA393.05(J)
4. Shri S.N.Dhanagare, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.3 supported the impugned judgment. According to him,
considering the age of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.One lakh has
been rightly awarded by the Claims Tribunal. He submitted that there was
no reason to enhance the compensation as granted.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 though served have not contested the
proceedings.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records of the case and I have given due consideration to the
respective submissions. The following point arises for consideration in the
present appeal.
"Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the
amount of compensation?
6. The Claims Tribunal in para 12 of its judgment has held that the
accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the
respondent no.1. The said finding is not under challenge. It is not in
dispute that the Jeep owned by respondent no.2 was insured with
respondent no.3. The only aspect that requires consideration is with regard
4 FA393.05(J)
to quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants.
7. The deceased was aged about 16 years and was taking education
when the accident occurred. In R.K.Malik (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in such a situation notional income of Rs.15,000/- per
annum could be taken into consideration. Considering the aspect of
notional income and the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation
as awarded by the Claims Tribunal can be treated to be compensation
towards pecuniary damages.
In R.K.Malik (supra), it has been held that besides pecuniary
compensation, amounts also deserve to be granted towards non-pecuniary
damages. Considering aforesaid law, compensation could be granted to the
appellants in the following manner :
(a) Pecuniary Compensation considering
age of the deceased. .... Rs.1,00,000/-
(b) Non-pecuniary damages. .... Rs. 75,000/-
(c) Compensation towards loss of love and .... Rs. 65,000/-
affection. -------------------
Rs.2,40,000/-
-------------------
Thus, the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of
5 FA393.05(J)
Rs.2,40,000/- which would include the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already
awarded. The point as framed stands answered accordingly.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment of the Claims
Tribunal dated 4th March, 2005 in Claim Petition No.286/2002 is partly
modified. It is held that appellants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation. The compensation shall be paid by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3
jointly and severally.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Andurkar
