Bombay High Court
Sow. Chandrakala Manmathappa ... vs Divisional Controller M S R T C ... on 21 November, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
FA.229 of 2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2003
1. Sow. Chandrakala w/o. Manmathappa
Halkude
2. Manmathappa s/o. Irappa Halkude ..Appellants
Vs.
1. Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation, Latur
2. Keshav s/o. Bhimrao Jadhav
3. Baswaraj s/o. Vishwanath Yengunde
-(appeal dismissed against resp.no.3
as per Registrar's order dt.07.12.2021)
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Bidar, Through its Br. Manager,
United India Insurance Co.
Near Panchavati Hotel, Latur ..Respondents
----
Mr.H.B.Nandgavale, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for
appellants
Mrs.R.D.Reddy, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.4
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2022
JUDGMENT :-
This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The
appellants are parents of the deceased - Siddheshwar, who died in an
2 FA.229 of 2003
accident involving motor vehicles. The appellants, therefore,
preferred a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the
evidence on record, held it to be a case of contributory negligence in
equal proportion.
2. The entire amount of compensation was assessed at
Rs.1,80,000/-. The appellants were held to be entitled to receive
50% thereof, since the deceased was held to be contributory
negligent in equal proportion. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Admittedly, the accident involving S.T. Bus (MH-20-A-
4618) and motorcycle (KA-38-243) took place by 02.00 p.m. on
10.09.1998. The deceased was 20 years of age. He had studied
upto 12th standard and was taking computer classes. He died
bachelor. The appellants, parents of the deceased, restricted their
claim to Rs.2,50,000/-, though, according to them, they were
entitled to Rs.3,05,000/- as compensation.
5. The claim petition was allowed only against respondent -
M.S.R.T.C. It was dismissed against the insurance company of the
motorcycle involved in the accident.
3 FA.229 of 2003
6. Mrs.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.1 -
M.S.R.T.C., would submit that the deceased was taking education.
He died bachelor. Fifty percent of the notional income of the
deceased, therefore, ought to have been reduced on account of his
personal expenses. According to her, although M.S.R.T.C. has not
taken exception to the impugned award, the scene of offence
panchnama and the evidence of the S.T. bus driver would suggest
that the deceased had gone to the wrong side of the road and
dashed against the S.T. bus. According to learned counsel, there is
no reason to interfere with the impugned award.
7. The bus driver has given details as to how the accident
took place. The scene of accident panchnama (Exh.24) indicates
that the deceased went to the wrong side of the road. The accident
was stated to have taken place, while the deceased was attempting
to overtake the S.T. bus proceeding ahead of him. The mother of
the deceased examined herself as witness. She had not seen the
accident. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence before it,
concluded it to be a case of contributory negligence in equal
proportion. When the evidence suggests that the deceased went to
the wrong side of the road before his motorcycle dashed against the
4 FA.229 of 2003
S.T. bus, this Court has no reason to take a different view and hold
the S.T. bus driver to have been exclusively responsible for the
accident.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:-
8. The deceased was 20 years of age. He had passed 12 th
standard examination. Although there is no concrete evidence about
he being engaged in taking computer classes, for grant of just
compensation, it has to be assumed that the deceased would earn a
sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. This way, his annual income would
come to Rs.30,000/-. Forty percent thereof has to be added towards
future prospects. The amount, as such, would come to Rs.42,000/-
(Rs.30,000 + Rs.12,000). Since the deceased died bachelor, 50%
thereof are required to be subtracted therefrom towards his personal
expenses. Thus, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.21,000/-.
As it was a case of contributory negligence in equal proportion, after
subtracting 50% amount therefrom, the loss of dependency would
come to Rs.10,500/-. The Tribunal appears to have applied
multiplier of 15 considering the average age of the appellants
(parents of the deceased). Multiplier has to be applied on the basis
of the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants.
5 FA.229 of 2003
Therefore, multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Applying multiplier
of 18, the amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency
would come to Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.10,500 x 18).
9. On account of loss of love and affection, each of the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- on
account of funeral expenses. The total thereof would come to
Rs.95,000/-. In view of it being a case of contributory negligence,
50% thereof would come to Rs.47,500/-. This way, the total amount
to which the appellants/claimants are entitled, would come to
Rs.2,36,500/- (Rs.1,89,000 + Rs.47,500).
10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in terms of
the following order:-
(i) It is held that the appellants are entitled to
Rs.2,36,500/-, as compensation.
(ii) They have already received a sum of Rs.90,000/-.
Respondent no.1 - M.S.R.T.C. shall pay the appellants an
amount of Rs.1,46,500/- (i.e. Rs.2,36,500 - Rs.90,000/-)
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date
of the claim petition, till realisation of the amount.
6 FA.229 of 2003
(iii) The amount deposited with this Court, if any, be paid to
the appellants immediately.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
