Babulal Seva Dholke And Anr vs C.S. Agrawal And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9110 Bom

                                          1
                                                                       2237.18FA

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          986 FIRST APPEAL NO.2237 OF 2018

          1]       Babulal s/o. Seva Dholke,
                   Age: 70 years, Occu : Nil.

          2]       Kausabai w/o. Babulal Dholke,
                   Age: Major, Occu : Household
                   [Deleted as Dead]

                   Both R/o. Barwar Mohalla,
                   Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.             .. APPELLANTS
                                                        [Orig. Claimants]

                           VERSUS

          1]       Shri C.S.Agrawal,
                   Age: Major, Occu : Business,
                   R/o. Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
                   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

          2]       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
                   Through its Branch Manager,
                   Branch Office, Jalna,
                   Tq. & Dist. Jalna.               .. RESPONDENTS
                                                  [Orig. Respondents]

                                      ...
          Mr.Pramod C. Mayure, Advocate for the appellants.
          Mr.Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for respondent no.1.
          Mr.Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                      ...

                                        CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

DATE : 13.09.2022

2237.18FA

PER COURT :

1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Jalna, the present appellants - original claimants

filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2] On 24th April, 1998 at about 15.30 hours when

Krishna was returning home from the duty on bicycle from

the Jalna-Mantha Bypass road, truck bearing No. MCA-3105

came from backside in high speed and in rash and negligent

manner and gave dash to the Bicycle. Due to the said

accident, Krishna died on the spot. A crime was registered

against truck driver.

3] The appellants - original claimants filed claim

petition for getting compensation before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jalna [for short 'the Tribunal']. The

Tribunal has awarded the compensation. The said judgment

and order was challenged by respondent no.2 -

2237.18FA

Insurance Company before this Court. This Court

[Coram : M.T.Joshi, J.] has disposed of the Appeal filed by

respondent no.2 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal,

Jalna for re-consideration of the evidence. After remand of

the matter, the Tribunal has passed the judgment and order.

The said judgment and order is under challenge.

4] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants that the Tribunal has awarded only

Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has not

considered the income of the deceased as well as not

awarded future prospects and not awarded the

compensation under other heads, hence, requested to allow

the appeal.

5] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondents that the order passed by the Tribunal is

legal and valid. Earlier the appellants had made false

statement before the Tribunal and on that basis the

compensation was awarded. The said judgment and order

was challenged before this Court. This Court has observed

2237.18FA

that the statements made by the appellants are false, hence,

the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing

for re-consideration of the evidence and on that basis the

Tribunal has considered the evidence and passed the order.

The said order has been passed after considering all the

evidence, hence, no interference is required in the said

order.

6] I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal

has awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the appellants,

which is granted under no fault liability. In earlier judgment

and award the Tribunal had awarded the amount of

Rs.2,88,000/- to the appellants as compensation. In the said

judgment and order, the Tribunal had considered monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and on that

basis calculations were done. But the said judgment and

order was challenged by respondent no.2 on the ground

that the father of the deceased had deposed before the

Court that he had only one son but in fact there were other

2237.18FA

two sons. The age of the claimants were shown differently.

On that counts, the appeal was preferred before this Court.

After hearing both the parties, this Court [Coram :

M.T.Joshi, J.] remanded the matter before the Tribunal for

re-consideration of the evidence. Thereafter, the impugned

order is passed by the Tribunal. In my view, the Tribunal has

erred in not considering the income of the deceased. It has

come in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was getting

monthly salary of Rs.3630/-. Salary certificate is produced

on record. But the Tribunal has not considered this fact. To

prove salary certificate, employer was necessary to examine

but he was not examined, hence, I am considering

Rs.2,500/- as notional income of the deceased Krishna. At

the time of accident, deceased was 25 years old. As per the

view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla

Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another reported in 2009 [5] Mh.L.J. 775, multiplier of

18 is applicable. No future prospects are awarded by the

Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others

2237.18FA

reported in [2017] 16 SCC 680 has held that if the deceased

is below 40 years of age and he is self-employed, he is

entitled for 40% additional income, hence, I am considering

40% additional income. No pecuniary loss is given under

the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and filial

consortium. I am considering it as Rs.70,000/-.

7] Considering the above calculations, the

appellants are entitled for the following compensation:-

Notional monthly income of the Rs.2,500/-

           deceased

           40% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi Rs.2,500/-        +    Rs.1000/-      =
           case [2,500/- 40% = 1000]                Rs.3500/-

           Deceased was        Bachelor, hence,      ½ Rs.3500-1750 = Rs.1750 per
           deduction                                   month

           Annual income of deceased                    Rs.1750 x 12 = Rs.21,000/-
                                                        p.a.

Deceased was 25 years old multiplier 18 Rs.21,000 x 18 = 3,78,000/-

Non pecuniary head Rs.70,000/-

Total 3,78,000/- + 70,000/- = Rs.4,48,000/- with interest 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization.

2237.18FA

Now crucial aspect is in respect of awarding the interest on

enhanced amount. The original claim petition was filed in

the year 1998. After decision on it by the Tribunal,

respondent no.2 preferred appeal, on the ground that false

statement was made by the father of the deceased before

the Tribunal and on that basis, earlier the Tribunal has

granted compensation. This Court has considered the said

fact and remanded the matter for re-consideration. Hence,

the appellants are entitled for the interest on the enhanced

amount from the order of this Court dated 13.01.2015.

8] In view of above, I pass following order :-

ORDER

i] The appeal is partly allowed.

ii] NFL amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deducted from the enhanced amount. The appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.3,98,000/- @ 7.5% p.a. interest from 13th January, 2015.

2237.18FA

iii] The appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount after deposit by respondent no.2.

iv] Respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the amount within four weeks before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna.

v] First Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[S.G.DIGE] JUDGE DDC