Bombay High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Seema Sudam Auti And Ors on 9 June, 2017
Bench: M.S. Sonak
j-fa-1991-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1991 OF 2011
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant
V/s.
Smt.Seema Sudam Auti & Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4708 OF 2016
----
Ms.Poonam Mital for the Appellant.
Mr.Avinash Mukund Gokhale for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in FA 1991
of 2011 and for the Applicants in CA 4708 of 2016.
----
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Reserving the order : 03 APRIL 2017.
Date of Pronouncing the order : 09 JUNE 2017.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Ms.Poonam Mital for the appellant-Insurance
Company and Mr.Avinash Gokhale for respondent Nos.1 to 4-
original claimants before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
(MACT).
2] The appellant, appeals against the judgment and
award dated 29th April 2011 made by the MACT awarding the
respondents-claimants compensation of Rs.71,36,917/- together
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the
Dinesh Sherla page 1 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
institution of the claim petition till realization of the amount.
3] The claim instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4
(claimants) arose on account of the demise of Sudam Auti on 25 th
May 2006 in the accident between Maruti Alto Car (Alto) which he
was driving and Tempo bearing registration No.MH-01/H-7008
(Tempo) at Rajuri Village, Ahmednagar- Kalyan Road. The collision
between Tempo and Alto resulted in the death of Sudam on the spot
and injuries to the two other occupants in the Alto. Sudam was 46
years old at the time of his unfortunate demise in the accident. He
was working as Manager in Patalganga Plant of Reliance Industries
and drawing monthly salary of Rs.52,000/- apart from several other
perquisites. The MACT, by the impugned award, has directed the
owner and insurer of the Tempo to pay compensation of
Rs.71,36,917/- (excluding amount of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault
liability) together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of the claim petition till realization. Aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company
has instituted the present appeal.
4] Ms.Mital, learned counsel for the appellant, submits
that this was a case of head on collision between two motor vehicles
Dinesh Sherla page 2 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
on a broad wide road. She submits that the material on record
makes out a case of contributory negligence on the part of deceased
Sudam, who was driving Alto. She submits that the material on
record establishes that Alto was overloaded and being driven in a
rash and negligent manner. She submits that the evidence on record
establishes that Sudam was speaking on mobile phone and driving
the Alto with only one hand to control the steering. She, therefore,
submits that the compensation awarded, which is even otherwise
very excessive, is required to be scaled down by at least 50%, since,
the deceased Sudam, contributed to the accident to the extent of
50%. On the aspect of contributory negligence. Ms.Mital, has placed
reliance upon the following decisions :-
(i) Kunjamma Mathai V/s. Marcelo Fernandes &
Ors. - 1996 ACJ 866;
(ii) Smt.Ushakiran Shridhar Shinde & Ors. V/s.
Arunkumar Kisanlal Kalal & Ors. - 2001 (4) ALL
M.R. 21;
(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. V/s.
Kamalbai & Ors. - 1994 ACJ 519; and
(iv) Anand Ramkrishna Raikar & Ors V/s.
Raghunath V. Keny & Anr. - 1996 ACJ 697.
Dinesh Sherla page 3 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
5] Ms.Mital, without prejudice to the aforesaid, submits
that the compensation awarded by the MACT is excessive and
contrary to the well settled principles. She submits that the evidence
on record, at the highest, suggest that the total income of Sudam
was Rs.5,25,910/- per annum and the MACT has erred in treating
such annual income at Rs.7,46,592/-. She submits that from out of
the annual income of Rs.5,25,910/-, an amount of Rs.1,09,928/-
was required to be deducted towards income tax. She submits that
the amount of annual income includes certain perquisite, which
were exclusive to Sudam and therefore, some suitable deductions
are warranted from annual income. She submits that the net income
of Sudam on the basis of evidence on record, cannot exceed Rs.4
lakhs per annum. She submits that the MACT, has grossly erred in
taking the annual income of Sudam at Rs.8,24,413/- and
determining the compensation on the said basis. She submits that
even on this score the compensation awarded by the MACT is
required to be reduced to Rs.35 lakhs in place of Rs.71,86,917/- as
determined by the MACT. She submits that no proper deductions
have been made towards personal expenses, income tax or personal
perquisites. She relied upon certain decisions in support of
determination of quantum of compensation in such matters.
Dinesh Sherla page 4 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
6] Mr.Gokhale, learned counsel for the respondents-
claimants, submits that the accident in the present case took place
entirely on account of negligence on the part of Tempo driver, who
was driving tempo at the very high speed in a rash and negligent
manner. He submits that there is absolutely no material on record
to suggest any contributory negligence. He submits that the MACT
has carefully assessed the material on record and rightly rejected the
contentions based upon the alleged overloading of vehicle, over
speeding or driving with one hand and using the other for speaking
on the mobile phone. He submits that in this case prosecution was
launched against the Tempo driver and in the prosecution so
launched, even the State, has not hinted any contributory negligence
on the part of deceased Sudam. He submits that the spot
panchanama and other documentary evidence on record also
militates against the theory of any contributory negligence.
Mr.Gokhale has relied upon the following decisions in support of his
submissions:
i] N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs/. M. Karumai Ammal and
ors.- (1980 ACJ 435 Supreme Court);
ii] Bimla Devi and ors V/s. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and ors. - (Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2009
arising out of SLP (C) No.280 of 2006 decided on 15 th
April 2009);
Dinesh Sherla page 5 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
iii] Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde vs. Nana
Raghunath Hire and ors - 2013 ACJ 474 (Bom.);
iv] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sangita D.
Jamdade and ors. - 2006 ACJ 971 Bom.;
v] Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. And anr. vs.
Devilal and ors. - 1991 ACJ 230 (Rajasthan); and
vi] Philippose Cherian and anr. vs. T.A. Edward Lobo
and anr. - 1991 ACJ 634 (Kerala);
7] Mr.Gokhale has further submitted that the
determination of compensation by the MACT is in fact on a
conservative basis and that this is a fit case where this court ought to
exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) and enhance the compensation amount, even in the
absence of any cross appeal or cross objections by the claimants. He
submits that the MACT has unnecessarily deducted certain amounts
from the annual income of Sudam and this has resulted in
determination of compensation, which is less than just and
reasonable. Besides, he submits that in this case award of
Rs.12,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
estate and love and affection and Rs.2000/- towards funeral
expenses is totally inadequate and in fact contrary to the decisions
in cases of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. - (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Munna Lal Jain and
Dinesh Sherla page 6 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and ors. -- 2015 (6) SCC 347. He
submits that the compensation under the said heads was required to
be at least Rs.10 lakhs and not Rs.42,000/- as determined by the
MACT. Mr. Gokhale submits that it is a fit case where the
compensation amount awarded by the MACT by the impugned
judgment and award is liable to be enhanced by this court. Mr.
Gokhale therefore, submits that this appeal may be dismissed, but
the compensation amount may be enhanced to Rs.1 crore as prayed
for by the claimants in the claim petition. Mr. Gokhale has also
placed reliance upon the following decisions in the matter of
assessment of compensation:-
vii] Vimal Kanwar and ors. Vs. Kishore Dan and ors. -
2013 ACJ 1441 SC);
viii] Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and ors. - 2013 ACJ
1403 SC).
8] In addition to the aforesaid, Mr. Gokhale also relied
upon the decisions in case of Daljeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Fakru and
anr. - 2008 ACJ 949 M.P. and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Surendra Umrao and anr. - 2008 ACJ 293 Allahabad, which deal
with admissibility of public documents in evidence. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, however, these decisions are quite
Dinesh Sherla page 7 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
irrelevant and therefore, are not required to be considered.
9] The rival contentions now fall for my determination.
10] The accident in which, Sudam died took place on
Ahmednagar - Kalyan Road. Sudam was driving Alto from Rajuri
towards Ozar. The Tempo, which was insured by the appellant came
from the opposite direction and dashed the Alto, resulting in demise
of Sudam. The parties have lead both oral as well as documentary
evidence as to the circumstances of the accident. There is also no
dispute that the criminal prosecution was launched by the State
against the driver of the Tempo alleging rashness and negligence.
However, the final out come of prosecution is not reflected from the
record.
11] As held by the MACT, there is no evidence to sustain
any finding of contributory negligence. In particular, there is no
evidence that the Alto was carrying passengers in excess of
prescribed limit or that Alto was being driven at some speed
exceeding some permissible limit. There is also no evidence that
Sudam was speaking on the mobile phone and the car was being
driven with only one hand on the steering. Ms Mital is not justified
in her criticism, when she urged that the MACT has in fact approved
Dinesh Sherla page 8 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
driving of the car with only one hand on the steering. The MACT,
has in fact held that there is no evidence to sustain any inference
that Sudam was speaking on the mobile phone and driving the Alto
with one hand only. The MACT has rightly referred to spot
panchanama and noted the absence of any such mobile phone from
the scene of accident. The MACT has also made reference to the
deposition of DW-1 Mansur, who had also not made any reference to
any mobile phone in the hand of Sudam. After recording a
categorical finding of fact that Sudam was not speaking on the
mobile phone, at the time of accident, the MACT, by way of demurer
made an observation that there is no rule, which bars a driver from
retaining the right hand on the steering wheel and changing gears
with his left hand. This is merely an observation by way of demurer.
Ms Mital, on the basis of material on record, was unable to make out
a case that Sudam was indeed negligent or that Sudam contributed
to the negligence, which ultimately resulted in the accident and
demise of Sudam. The material on record does establish that the
accident took place on account of negligence of the Tempo driver.
The oral and documentary evidence on record does not support the
theory of any contributory negligence. The spot panchanama,
damage to the vehicles, the circumstance that the Tempo was a
heavier vehicle weighing 5500 Kgs as compared to Alto which
Dinesh Sherla page 9 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
weighed about 750 Kgs, are all relevant pieces of evidence, which
have been appropriately considered by the MACT in concluding that
the accident took place on account of negligence of the Tempo
driver and Sudam, in no manner, contributed to the negligence.
12] The decisions relied upon by Ms Mittal basically turn on
their own facts. In Kunjamma Mathai (supra), the collision was
between a mini bus and motor cycle. The evidence on record
established that the motorcyclist on the main road took a turn
towards his right to go to a secondary road without giving signal.
The Tempo dashed the motorcycle and it is in these circumstances
that negligence was apportioned at 60% upon the motorcyclist and
40% upon the Tempo driver. No such circumstances are brought on
record in the present case and therefore, the decision in case of
Kunjamma Mathai (supra), is inapplicable.
13] Similarly, in Ushakiran Shinde (supra), learned Single
Judge of this Court has held that the plea of contributory negligence
cannot be regarded as proved merely on basis of certain
observations in the panchanama, more particularly when the
contents of the panchanama were never proved. This decision hardly
assists the appellant in establishing the plea of contributory
Dinesh Sherla page 10 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
negligence. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamalabai (supra),
there was head on collision between a Matador and Truck on a road
whose width was enough for the two vehicles to pass. In the facts
and circumstance as established, this Court held that the drivers of
both the vehicles were proceeding at high speed and contributed to
negligence. No such facts have been established in the present case.
14] In Anand R. Raikar (supra), there was eye witness's
evidence that the scooterist came from village road to the highway
and was dashed by a taxi. On basis of established facts, this court
held that the deceased scooterist ought to have looked on both sides
before entering upon highway from the village road and therefore,
contributed to negligence to the extent of 75%. Again, such facts do
not obtain in the present case and therefore, the decision in Anand
Raikar (supra), is of no assistance to the appellant.
15] Accordingly, there is no merit in the contention of
Ms Mittal that deceased Sudam contributed to negligence, which
resulted in accident and demise of Sudam.
16] There is no dispute that deceased Sudam was working
as a Manager Lab/Process in Patalganga Plant at Reliance Industries.
Dinesh Sherla page 11 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
There is both documentary as well as oral evidence with regard to
salary and emoluments drawn by Sudam at the time of his demise in
the accident which has given rise to the claim in this proceedings.
The gross salary as per the income tax returns for the financial year
2005-2006 comes to Rs.6,16,969/-. The MACT has added an
amount of Rs.1,29,623/- towards perquisites. However, such
addition in its entirety appears to be excessive. The material on
record indicates that at least 50% of such amount relates to
travelling expenses, which, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, will have to be regarded as personal to Sudam. The
addition of Rs.65000/-, i.e., approximately 50% of Rs.1,29,623/-,
appears to be proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. This means that the gross annual income of Sudam can be
taken as Rs.6,81,969/-. Out of this, amount of Rs.1,09,928/- will
have to be deducted towards income tax, so as to assess the net
income at Rs.5,72,041/-. In terms of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the addition of 30%
is due to the net annual income, since, Sudam was about 46 years at
the time of his demise. This means that the annual income of
Sudam, for the purposes of assessment of compensation, will have to
be taken as Rs.7,62,724/- and not Rs.8,24,413/- as held by the
MACT.
Dinesh Sherla page 12 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
17] The MACT has deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal
expenses. In this case, Sudam was survived by his widow, two
children and two parents, i.e., Sudam was survived by five
dependents. Shri. Shripatrao Auti, Sudam's father has expired
during pendency of proceedings before the MACT. The deduction
towards personal expenses, in such circumstances, could be taken as
1/4th and not 1/3rd as held by the MACT. This means that the annual
dependency comes to Rs.5,72,041/-. Further, considering that
Sudam was 46 years old at the time of accident and demise, the
multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma (supra), will have to be correctly
taken as 13. The MACT has correctly taken the multiplier as 13. The
total compensation towards dependency would therefore, be
Rs.5,72,041 X 13 = Rs.74,36,533/-.
18] Besides aforesaid, the compensation of Rs.1 lakh is
payable to Seema, i.e., Sudam's widow for loss of consortium. The
two children of Sudam also entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lakh
each towards loss of love and affection on account of demise of their
father Sudam. Similarly, Sudam's mother Tarabai is also entitled to
compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection on
account of demise of Sudam. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- is
Dinesh Sherla page 13 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
due and payable towards funeral expenses. This means that
additional compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- is due and payable to the
claimants.
19] Thus, just and reasonable compensation, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case is required to be assessed at
Rs.78,11,533/- in place of Rs.71,36,917/- as determined by the
MACT.
20] In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and ors.- (2003) 2
SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of
the claims tribunal as well as the appeal court to determine and
award just and reasonable compensation and that such duty is
statutory irrespective of whether claim has been made in respect
thereof or not.
21] In Nagappa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after
reference to several provisions of the M.V. Act has held as follows:
"9. It appears that due importance is not given to sub-
section (4) of Section 166 which provides that the Tribunal
shall treat any report of the accidents forwarded to it under
sub-section (6) of Section 158, as an application for
compensation under this Act.
10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal
Dinesh Sherla page 14 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
to "make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just". Therefore, the
only requirement for determining the compensation is that it
must be "just". There is no other limitation or restriction on
its power for awarding just compensation.
11. Secondly, under Section 169, the Claims Tribunal in
holding any inquiry under Section 168 is required to follow
the rules that are made in this behalf and follow such
summary procedure as it thinks fit. In the present case, it
has been pointed out that Rule 253 of the Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 empowers the Claims Tribunal to
exercise all or any of the powers vested in a civil court under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 254
inter alia makes specific provision that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
is applicable to such proceedings. In this view of the matter,
in an appropriate case, depending upon the facts and the
evidence which has been brought on record and in the
interest of justice, the court may permit amendment of claim
petition so as to award enhanced compensation. Further, for
amendment of the pleadings, it is settled law that unless it
causes injustice to the other side or it is not necessary for the
purpose of determining the real issue between the parties,
the court would grant amendment. It is also to be stated that
under the MV Act there is no time-limit prescribed for
claiming compensation. Therefore, there is no question of
enhanced claim being barred by limitation.
12. This Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v.
Northern India Transport Insurance Co. observed as under:
(SCC p. 788, paras 6-7)
"The pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would
depend upon data which cannot be ascertained
accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or
even partly a conjecture.
* * *
The determination of the question of compensation
depends on several imponderables. In the
assessment of those imponderables, there is likely to
be a margin of error."
13. Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to
determine just compensation from the evidence which is
brought on record despite the fact that the claimant has not
precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation
Dinesh Sherla page 15 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
which he is entitled to. If the evidence on record justifies
passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on
the ground that the claimant has restricted his claim. Form
63 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for
filing an application for compensation, does not provide that
the claimant should specify his claim amount. It inter alia
provides that he should mention his monthly income as well
as the nature of injury sustained and medical certificates.
14. In case, where there is evidence on record justifying
the enhanced compensation for the medical treatment which
is required because of the injury caused to a claimant due to
the accident, there is no reason why such amendment or
enhanced compensation should not be granted. In such
cases, there is no question of introducing a new or
inconsistent cause of action. Cause of action and evidence
remain the same. Only question is -- application of law as it
stands.
15. Mr P.K. Chakravarti, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company, in support of his contention that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award higher amount of
compensation than what is claimed even though it is not
likely to cause prejudice to the Insurance Company, heavily
relied upon the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the
High Court of Gujarat in Urmila J. Sangani (Dr) v.
Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana. In that case, the High Court
after considering relevant decisions on the subject observed
thus: (AIR p. 220, para 10)
"We may mention that when the claimant feels that he
is entitled to more compensation than what is claimed
in the petition, it is always open to him/her to amend
the claim petition and if the same is in consonance
with the equity, justice and good conscience, there is no
reason why the Claims Tribunal should not grant
amendment. Before compensation more than claimed is
awarded, the opposite parties should be put to notice,
the requisite additional issue/issues should be raised
and the parties should be permitted to adduce their
evidence on the additional issues, but if no such
opportunity is given, the procedure would obviously
suffer from material irregularity affecting the decision."
16. From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that
there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the
Dinesh Sherla page 16 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when
the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass
such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record,
the court may permit such amendment and allow to raise
additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to
produce relevant evidence.
17. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for
the appellant Ms Kiran Suri referred to the decision of the
Bombay High Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay
v. Kisan Gangaram Hire wherein the Court dealt with a
similar contention and observed thus:
"8. What is further necessary to note is that what gives
a cause of action for preferring an application for claim
for compensation is the accident by motor vehicle or
vehicles and not a particular monetary loss occasioned
by such accident. While the compensation in all no-fault
claim cases is fixed and uniform, in fault claim cases the
losses may vary from case to case. The particular losses
are merely the consequence of the accident which is the
cause of action. This being so, the amounts of
compensation claimed are nothing but the particulars
of the claim made. By its very nature, further the
amount of compensation claimed cannot always be
calculated precisely. In many cases it can at best be a
fair estimate...."
18. The High Court observed that in all such cases, it is
necessary to keep the doors open for the claimant to make
the claims, on grounds not stated earlier or for more
amounts under heads already specified in the application.
19. The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was
relied upon and referred to by the Orissa High Court in
Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim and G.B. Pattanaik,
J. (as he then was) observed that the expression "just
compensation" would obviously mean what is fair, moderate
and reasonable and awarded in the proved circumstances of
a particular case and the expression "which appears to it to
be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter
of determining of compensation. Thereafter, the Court
referred to the decision in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd.
and held that the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party
would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained
accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly
Dinesh Sherla page 17 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
a conjecture, and if this is so, then it will be unreasonable to
expect the party to state precisely the amount of damages or
compensation that it would be entitled to. The Court also
held that there are no fetters on the power of the Tribunal to
award compensation in excess of the amount which is
claimed in the application.
20. Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana observed that the
grant of just and fair compensation is the statutory
responsibility of the court and if, on the facts, the court finds
that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the
court should allow the claimant to amend his prayer and
allow proper compensation.
21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under
the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court
cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed
amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award
"just" compensation which is reasonable on the basis of
evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is
no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be
contended that by enhancing the claim there would be
change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as
provided under subsection (4) to Section 166, even the
report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section
(6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for
compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate
cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim
petition."
22] In Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport V.
Ramarao-(2013) 5 MLJ 715, learned Single Judge of the Madras
High Court, after detailed consideration of the legal provisions as
well as the precedents has held that it is the duty of the appeal court
to award just compensation irrespective of whether or not the same
may have been claimed by the claimants or not. In Ningamma and
anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited - (2009) 13
SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34 has held that
section 166 of the MV Act deals with "just compensation" and even if
Dinesh Sherla page 18 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
in the pleadings no specific claim was made, a party should not be
deprived from getting "just compensation" in case the claimant is
able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say,
the M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is
duty bound to award "just compensation" irrespective of the fact
whether any plea was raised in respect of the claimant or not.
23] Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the appeal will have to be
dismissed. However, the compensation is determined at
Rs.78,11,533/- in place of Rs.71,36,917/- as determined by the
MACT. The appellant is therefore directed to pay compensation as
now determined to the claimants. Now that children of Sudam have
attained majority, there is no necessity to abide by the directions as
regards investment of compensation amount so awarded. Rather,
interest of justice will be met if the compensation amount now
determined is apportioned amongst the claimants in the following
manner:
a] Seema (widow) 45% ;
b] Smita (daughter) 20%;
c] Swapnil (son) 20%; and
d] Tarabai (mother) 15%.
Dinesh Sherla page 19 of 20
j-fa-1991-2011
24] The claimants shall be entitled to proportionate interest
upon the compensation amount so determined. The MACT has
awarded interest of 7% per annum and there is no reason to disturb
such award. The appellant shall however be entitled for credit in
respect of the amounts already deposited or paid.
25] The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
26] The civil application for withdrawal is disposed of in
terms of the final order made in the appeal itself.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Dinesh Sherla page 20 of 20
