Bombay High Court
Smt.Sushila Wd/O. Suraj Patode & 2 ... vs Divisional Controller, Msrtc, ... on 29 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa168.08.J.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.168 OF 2008
1] Smt. Sushila wd/o Suraj Patode,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation: Labourer.
2] Ku. Sunita d/o Suraj Patode,
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation: Labourer.
3] Chandraprakash s/o Suraj Patode,
Aged about 20 years,
Occupation: Student and Labourer,
All 1 to 3 are R/o Gadegaon,
Tahsil Sakoli, District: Bhandara.
Presently at Warthi,
Tahsil & District Bhandara. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Divisional Office, Akola.
2] Pradip s/o Tulshiram Gangalwar,
S.T. Bus Driver, R/o Akot, Ramtekpura,
Wadi of Bhagat, Tahsil Akot,
District Akola.
3] Personal Manager,
Ashok Leyland Co. Ltd.,
Gadegaon, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 01/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2017 00:39:48 :::
fa168.08.J.odt 2/6
4] Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Madrass Divisional Office No.VI,
768 - Anna Salai Madrass - 600 002,
through Branch Manager - National
Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O. No.III,
Sajjansingh Buldg. Mount Road,
Sadar, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for parties.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE: 29 th
MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The appellants legal heirs of the deceased Suraj are
before this Court in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement. It is made clear that the
finding of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara that the
deceased contributed 50% to the accident as also computation of
compensation has been questioned before this Court. Nobody has
appeared for parties even today. Matter was called out on
26.05.2017 and on that day also nobody appeared.
2] Question before this Court is - Whether driver of State
Transport bus was wholly responsible for accident dated
17.10.1996? The other question is whether right amount of
earning of deceased has been looked into by M.A.C.T. and
fa168.08.J.odt 3/6
whether quantum of compensation awarded is just and proper?
3] I find that on 17.10.1996 deceased Suraj was
employee with respondent No.3-Ashok Leyland as driver, he was
driving a Chassis and proceeding from Gadegaon Depot of
respondent No.3 to a place in Gujrat. Near Dattwadi on
Nagpur-Amravati road at 09:15 p.m. there was a dash between
this Chassis and State Transport bus, which came from opposite
direction. Suraj was killed in that accident.
4] Record shows that left side i.e. driver side of bus got
damaged in the accident. Driver of bus, during his
cross-examination, accepted that in order to avoid collusion
Chassis driver (Suraj) turned his steering towards left.
Before M.A.C.T., claimants urged that the negligence of bus driver
was of a higher degree. Impact of Chassis was on left side of the
bus and this material has been used by M.A.C.T. to infer that
though Chassis towards left, but Suraj could not avoid dash.
Spot panchnama reveals that direct head on collusion and also
ongoing road widening work.
5] In this situation, as road widening work was going
on, it is apparent that both vehicles needed to proceed slowly and,
fa168.08.J.odt 4/6
if any, vehicle is seen coming from opposite direction, but on
wrong side, the drivers of both vehicle must be in a position to
stop them immediately. Here the claimants put a suggestion to
driver of S.T. bus that Suraj took a left turn to avoid dash of S.T.
bus. Left side of S.T. bus (driver side) was damaged. Had Suraj
not taken left turn, front portion of S.T. bus would have been
damaged. M.S.R.T.C. bus was on correct side of the road.
M.S.R.T.C. driver has asserted that his vehicle was on correct side
of road and accident did not occur in the middle of road. There is
no cross-examination in this respect. The finding of M.A.C.T. that
both the drivers contributed equally to the accident, therefore,
does not warrant any intervention.
6] Widow of deceased has entered witness box and
stated that Suraj was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Only because
she could not produce any written proof in support of this, her
evidence could not have been discarded. Rate of minimum wages
then could have been looked into Suraj was supporting his wife
and two children then aged about 13 years and 8 years. Rs.3000/-
per month works out to Rs.100/- per day. I, therefore, find that
refusal by M.A.C.T. to accept statement made on oath by widow is
unsustainable.
fa168.08.J.odt 5/6
7] When income of deceased is taken to be Rs.36,000/-
per year, after making allowance for 1/3rd part thereof for his
personal needs, dependency of family works out to Rs.24,000/-
per year. As per judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in (i) Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
(SC), (ii) Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)
and (iii) Asha Verman and others v. Maharaj Singh and others
reported in 2015 ACT 1286, the amount of 20% at least can be
added to this income to provide for future potentials and
prospects. So annual dependency of the family for the purposes of
present claim can be Rs.28,800/-. Deceased was aged about 30
years and M.A.C.T. has applied multiplier of 17. This use is not in
dispute. The quantum of dependency after multiplication by 17
works out to Rs.4,89,600/-. Thus, the appellants are entitled to
50% of this amount as compensation on account of accidental
death of Suraj. 50% of this amount works out to Rs.2,44,800/-.
8] In addition, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
[supra], appellant no.1 widow is entitled to amount of Rs.1 lakh
towards loss of consortium, each son is entitled to amount of Rs.1
lakh towards loss of love and affection and family is entitled to
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure. 50% of this works out to
fa168.08.J.odt 6/6
Rs.1,62,500/-. I, therefore, find that family is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,07,300/- on account of accidental death of
Suraj.
9] The appellants are also entitled to grant of 9%
interest on said amount of Rs.4,07,300/- from the date of filing of
claim petition. Amount already received by them needs to be
deducted from the total amount so calculated.
10] Accordingly, the questions formulated supra, are
answered. Appellants to pay deficit court fee within six weeks
from today.
11] After court fee is deposited in High Court,
respondents are directed to pay the above amount to the appellant
jointly and severally within four months from today.
12] Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
No costs.
JUDGE
NSN
