Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Parbat Patil And Anr vs Devendra Chawala Narendrasingh ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 2053/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2053/2012
1) Shri Murlidhar Parbat Patil
Age: 53 Yrs., occu. Agril.
2) Smt.Devkabai Murlidhar Patil
Age: 43 Yrs., occu. Household
Both R/o Mondhale (Pra)
Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. = APPELLANT/S
(orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1) Devendra Chawla s/o Narendrasing
Chawla, Age: Adult r/o Transport
r/o Fafadhi Chowk, Jail Road,
Raipur (Chhatisgad)
(Owner of Tru No.CG-04/G-5746)
2) National Insurance Company
Ltd. Through the Manager,
National Insurance Company
Ltd. Dhule, Tq. And Dist.
Dhule = RESPONDENTS
(No.1 & 2 orig.
opponents)
-----
Mr. NL Jadhav, Advocate for Appellants;
Respondent No.1 duly served;
Mr.SS Chapalgaonkar, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:16 :::
2 FA 2053/2012
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
13 th
July,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard finally by consent of the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties.
2) The claimants in the MACP No.2/2006
decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Amalner, (for short the Tribunal) on 7th
February, 2010, have filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation
as awarded by the Tribunal.
3) The appellants had filed the aforesaid
claim petition seeking compensation on account of
death of their son viz. Gorakh, who died at the
age of 21 in a vehicular accident happened on
10th December, 2005 having involvement of
Minidoor bearing registration No.MH-19/AE-0645,
owned by present Respondent No.1 and insured with
present Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:16 :::
3 FA 2053/2012
4) It was the contention of the appellants
before the Tribunal that, they lost their son at
the midst of their life, who could have been
their sole support in their old age. They had,
therefore, claimed compensation amounting to
Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the
Minidoor.
5) Admittedly, on the date of the accident,
deceased Gorakh was not employed, but was in
search of employment and was likely to get
employment, as has been pleaded by the
appellants. The learned Tribunal, after having
assessed the oral and documentary evidence,
awarded the compensation of Rs.3,16,500/-
inclusive of NFL compensation to the appellants
from the owner and insurer of the said Minidoor.
Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation so
awarded, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
6) Shri Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:16 :::
4 FA 2053/2012
for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal
has erred in applying multiplier of 13 based on
the age of the claimants; whereas multiplier
based on the age of the deceased must have been
applied while determining the amount of
compensation. The learned Counsel further
submitted that income of the deceased has also
been held by the Tribunal on much lower side
though sufficient evidence was adduced bringing
on record the prospects of deceased Gorakh. The
learned Counsel further submitted that the
Tribunal has also awarded a very unjust and
inadequate amount towards non-pecuniary damages.
The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
allowing the appeal and to enhance the amount of
compensation adequately.
7) Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2-insurance company,
has supported the impugned judgment. The learned
Counsel submitted that a well-reasoned order has
been passed by the learned Tribunal and no
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:16 :::
5 FA 2053/2012
interference is warranted in the amount of
compensation so awarded by the Tribunal.
8) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing
for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent - insurance company. Though
it is sought to be canvassed that the multiplier
13 was wrongly applied by the Tribunal, having
regard to the fact that deceased was bachelor and
the parents had claimed the compensation, it does
not appear to me that the Tribunal has committed
any error in applying the multiplier based on the
ages of the parents.
. The another objection raised by the
appellants as about non-consideration of the
future prospects of the deceased by the Tribunal
while determining the amount of compensation is
also liable to be rejected. The appellants did
not adduce any evidence showing the future
prospects of the deceased. No error therefore
said to have been committed by the learned
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:16 :::
6 FA 2053/2012
Tribunal.
9) In so far as grant of non-pecuniary
damages is concerned, some indulgence is
certainly warranted. The Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses,
whereas a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of
estate. The compensation so awarded is wholly
unjust and inadequate. Having regard to the
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the series of judgments, I deem it appropriate to
enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by
the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages by
Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellants are thus held
entitled to the total compensation of
Rs.4,16,500/- inclusive of NFL compensation. It
appears to me that in the fact and circumstances
of the case, this will be the just and fair
compensation payable to the appellants/claimants.
10) In the result, the following order, -
ORDER
i) The amount of compensation as
7 FA 2053/2012
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by
Rs.1,00,000/- and the appellants are
held entitled to the total compensation
of Rs.4,16,500/- jointly and severally
from the respondents;
ii) The respondents shall pay to
the appellants the enhanced amount of
compensation with interest thereon @ 9%
p.a. From the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization;
iii) The Award be modified
accordingly;
iv) The Appeal stands allowed in
the aforesaid terms. Pending Civil
Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
