M/S Eureka Forbes Limited Thr. ... vs Sanjay Laxminarayan Srivastava & ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1044 Bom

                                        1                                                               fa365.06


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         FIRST APPEAL (FA) NO. 365 OF 2006

M/s Eureka Forbes Limited,
C/o H. Warliah, Paul Commercial
Complex, Ajani, Nagpur, through
its Manager.                                                     ... APPELLANT

                                          VERSUS

1. Sanjay Laxminarayan Srivastava
     aged about 28 years,

2. Chetan Laxminarayan Shrivastava,
     aged about 25 years,

3. Preeti wd/o Pappu Sonkar,
     aged about 30 years,
     
     All residents of Plot No.340,
     Sanjay Nagar, Near Nelson
     Mandela Hostel, Ramnagar,
     Nagpur - 10.

4. Hansaraj Shamrao Warkhade,
     aged 30 years, R/o P & T Colony,
     Telangkhedi, Ramnagar, Nagpur.                              ... RESPONDENTS

                                            ....
Shri   Nitin   Jachak,   Advocate   with   Shri   Sachin   Hatwar,   Advocate   for   the 
appellant.
None for the respondents.
                                            ....


                                        CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

2 fa365.06

This appeal has been filed by the appellant (owner of the

offending vehicle), challenging the judgment and order dated 06.07.2005

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition

No. 402/2001, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3

was allowed and the Tribunal directed the appellant and respondent No.4

to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with future interest

at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim

petition till realization.

2. The relevant facts pertaining to the present case are that on

27.11.2000, mother of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was riding a TVS Scooty with

respondent No.3 on the pillion seat. A motor cycle driven by respondent

No.4, employee of the appellant, dashed the said Scooty resulting in the

mother of respondent Nos.1 to 3 falling and suffering severe injuries. The

said person died and respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a claim petition before

the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation.

3. The Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order

granting compensation by considering notional income of the deceased as

Rs.15,000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal

granted total compensation of Rs.1,65,000/-, including compensation

under the heads of loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of

estate.

3 fa365.06

4. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order of

the Tribunal by filing this appeal.

5. Shri Nitin Jachak, Advocate along with Shri Sachin Hatwar,

Advocate appears on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of

the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

proceeded to decide the claim petition of respondent Nos.1 to 3 despite

the fact that the Counsel who was engaged for the appellant before the

Tribunal, had filed "No Instructions Pursis" and none had appeared on

behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal to contest the claim petition. It

was contended that in such a situation, the Tribunal ought to have issued

fresh notice to the appellant before deciding the claim petition. It was

further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be said to be

dependents on the deceased and that, therefore, the Tribunal erred in

granting compensation to them.

7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the

appellant. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal

shows that there was a written statement filed on behalf of the appellant

before the Tribunal, although thereafter, the Counsel appearing for the

4 fa365.06

appellant before the Tribunal had filed "No Instructions Pursis" after

giving notice to the appellant. In this situation, when written statement

was already on record, the appellant ought to have been vigilant and

engaged counsel if it was serious about contesting of the claim petition.

Having failed to take any step in the matter, the appellant cannot now be

heard to complain that the Tribunal did not grant proper opportunity to

the appellant to present its case.

8. As regards the contention about the dependency of respondent

Nos.1 to 3, the said respondents have clearly stated in paragraphs 8 and 9

of the claim petition that they are the sons and the daughter of deceased

and that they were dependents on her. It is further stated that the

respondent No.3 was a widowed daughter of the deceased and she had a

small child and that they were completely dependent on the deceased.

9. Perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal further

shows that although respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimed that the deceased was

earning about Rs.7,000/- per month but since they had failed to place on

record any cogent material to support their contentions, the Tribunal has

not accepted the aforesaid claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In this

situation, the Tribunal has correctly proceeded on the basis that the

deceased had notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and on that basis

appropriate deductions and multiplier have been applied. The amount of

5 fa365.06

compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss

of estate is also reasonable. Therefore, the total compensation of

Rs.1,65,000/- granted by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of nine

per cent per annum is "just and reasonable" compensation.

10. In the light of the above, since the appellant has failed to

demonstrate any error in the impugned judgment and order, the appeal is

dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

*rrg.