Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Barnet Mery Wd/O Cherian & Others on 21 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
(Judgment) 2109 FA 697-2005 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.
697
/20
05
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager,
D.O. No. 2, Palm Road, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. APP ELLA
NT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Smt. Barnet Mery wd/o Cheriancutti,
Aged about 65 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. 34/6, New Chankapur, Tah. Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur.
2] Shri Ganpat s/o Budhaji Thakre,
Aged 55 years, Occu: Jeep Owner,
R/o. Dahegaon (Rangari),
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
3] Shri Jems Willson s/o Cheriancutti,
Aged 45 years, Occu: Not known,
R/o. Coal Mines Quarters, Chankapur,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. RESPONDE NT
S
Shri A.W. Paunikar, counsel for appellant.
None appears for the respondents.
CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred against a part of
the award dated 29/10/2005, rendered in Claim
(Judgment) 2109 FA 697-2005 2/4
Petition No. 541/2001, by the Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in respect of
quantum of compensation.
2] I have heard learned counsel for the
appellant. None appears for the respondent. I have
gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
The only point which arises for my determination is,
"Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and fair?"
3] On going through the entire evidence
available on record and applicable law, particularly
the law laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma
and others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104, by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not think that there is
any scope for making any interference with the
impugned award.
4] The income of the deceased, who was an
electrical contractor and also engaged in the business
(Judgment) 2109 FA 697-2005 3/4
of Touring Talkies, has been taken to be at Rs.3,000/-
per month by the Tribunal. This was done because no
documentary evidence was adduced by the
respondent no.1. But, it cannot be said that
determination of the monthly income of the deceased
by approximation by the Tribunal in the present case
is so illogical as would warrant it's substitution by
another view by this Court. The reason being that in
the year 2001, when the accident occurred, any
person who carried on such business as electrical
contractorship and Touring Talkies, would require not
less than Rs.100/- for his daily existence. This being
the position in the year 2001, the monthly income of
Rs.3,000/- of the deceased determined by the
Tribunal could not be said to be perverse.
5] Once it is found that the monthly income
has been properly taken and determined by the
Tribunal, hardly any scope remains for interference
with the further calculations made by the Tribunal in
arriving at final amount of compensation, payable to
the respondent, the old and aged mother of the
(Judgment) 2109 FA 697-2005 4/4
deceased.
6] In view of above, I see no merit in this
appeal. The point is answered accordingly. Appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7] Appeal stands dismissed.
8] Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
