Bombay High Court
Vidharbha Irrigation ... vs Sou.Lilabai Wd/O.Ramkrishna ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.51 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Shahnoor Project
Division, Achalpur, Tq. Achalpur
Dist. Amravati. ... Appellant.
-vs-
1. Lilabai wd/o Ramkrishna Yeul,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ. Household
2. Kumar Ravindra s/o Ramkrishna Yeul,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ. Student
3. Vandana d/o Ramkrishna Yeul,
Aged about 21 years,
Occ. Student
4. Pushpa d/o Ramkrishna Yeul,
Aged about 19 years,
Occ. Student
5. Kumar Sachin s/o Ramkrishna Yeul,
Aged about 17 years,
Occ. Student,
All residents of Surji Anjangaon,
Tq. Anjangaon, Tq. Anjangaon Surji,
Dist. Amravati.
6. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector,
Amravati.
7. Krishnarao Sahadeorao Bhoge,
aged about 40 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o Chandur Prakalp Colony,
Anjangaon Surji, Tq. Anjangaon
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:38:16 :::
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 2/7
Surji, Dist. Amravati. ... Respondents.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent No.6.
CORAM : DR (SMT) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JUNE 23, 2017
Oral Judgment :
In MACP No.48/2001 decided on 30/09/2005, the MACT,
Achalpur directed the appellant to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of petition till realization. Hence being aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal
is preferred.
2] Facts of the appeal can be stated in brief as follows :
Respondent No.1 is the widow of deceased Ramkrishna.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are their children. On 01/10/1996 while deceased
was proceeding to Anjangaon from Pandhari on his bicycle, the jeep bearing
registration No.MGS-506 came from opposite direction in high speed and
gave dash to the deceased. As a result, deceased along with his bicycle was
dragged upto distance of 140 ft. He received various injuries in the said
accident and was declared dead when he was brought to the hospital. In
respect of the said incident, the offence was registered at Anjangaon police
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 3/7
station against respondent No.7 who was driving jeep at the relevant time.
Said jeep was belonging to the appellant and respondent No.6 was in-charge
of the said jeep. Hence respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a petition before the
Tribunal claiming compensation from the appellant, respondent No.6 and
respondent No.7 jointly and severally.
3] As regards quantum of compensation, it was submitted that
deceased was working as labourer and was earning Rs.50-70 per day. He
was contributing amount of Rs.40 per day to his family members after
deducting his personal expenses. At the time of accident he was 45 years of
age. Hence total amount of compensation claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 5
was Rs.3,30,000/-.
4] This petition came to be resisted by the present
appellant/respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Common defence raised by these
respondents was that cause of accident was not the rash and negligent
driving of the jeep driver but it was the deceased who had, all of a sudden,
came in front of the jeep, from behind one truck. The liability to pay the
compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was therefore denied by the
appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7.
5] Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 4/7
framed necessary issues at Exhibit-24. In support of her case, respondent
No.1 examined herself alone and closed evidence. She was cross examined
on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 and respondents also
relied upon the evidence of Arvind Chude, who was travelling in the jeep at
the relevant time.
6] On the appreciation of this evidence, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition, directing appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to jointly and
severally pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimants.
7] Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the appellant.
In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has
disputed the liability of jeep driver in the accident that has ensued and als
the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal.
8] It is true that, as regards the cause of accident, the evidence of
respondent No.1, the claimant, cannot be of much relevance, as she was not
an eye witness to the accident. Hence this Court has to rely upon the
documentary evidence like the FIR and spot panchanama. The copy of the
FIR goes to show that police, on necessary inquiry, came to conclusion that
the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver and
accordingly offence under Section 279 and 304A of I.P.C was registered
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 5/7
against the jeep driver. The spot panchanama reveals that on account of the
impact of dash of jeep, deceased was dragged up to distance of 140 ft.
Therefore it was clear that the impact was very forceful thereby indicating
that jeep was driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. A
specific plea is raised in the written statement by the appellant and
respondent Nos.6 and 7 that deceased Ramkrishna came all of a sudden on
the middle of the road from behind the truck and therefore the accident
could not be avoided by the driver of the jeep. In order to prove the said
plea, it was for the jeep driver to come before the Court with a case that the
accident occurred, was not due to negligent driving of the jeep driver, but it
was the deceased who came all of a sudden in front of a jeep from behind
the truck. Respondent No.7 - the jeep driver has not examined himself. The
appellant has, however, examined one eye-witness to the accident by name
Arvind Chude, who was travelling in that jeep. He has, however, given a
totally different version of the accident. According to him, as one truck from
opposite side, the jeep driver has to take the jeep to the left side of the road,
which resulted in dash to the cycle of the deceased. Moreover, in cross
examination, he has admitted that he had not seen the accident due to
darkness and he does not know whether jeep was driven in a rash and
negligent manner. Hence, his evidence is not of any help to the appellant to
prove negligence of the deceased.
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 6/7
9] In such circumstances, the factual position as emerges from the
FIR and spot panchanama has to be accepted to hold that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. Hence, the
appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot evade the liability to
compensate the claimants on account of death of deceased Ramkrishna.
10] As regards the quantum of compensation, it is deposed by
respondent No.1 that at the time of accident, she was about 40 years of age
whereas deceased was 45 years of age. Learned Tribunal has, therefore,
rightly applied multiplier of '15' in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma vrs. D.C.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
According to the evidence of respondent No.1, deceased was doing labour
work and was earning Rs.60-70 per day. He was contributing amount of
Rs.40 per day for his family. Considering the said amount to be reasonable
and applying multiplier of '15', Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
entitled to get Rs.2,16,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded amount of
Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/-
for loss of consortium. Hence respondent Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get total
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- with 9% interest per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
210-J-FA-51-06-odt 7/7
11] If one considers the evidence discussed and multiplier applied by
the Tribunal, then the amount of compensation arrived at cannot be said to
be unreasonable. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
does not warrant any interference. Hence the appeal holds no merits and the
same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
