Ashabai Asaram Lohakare vs The Divisional Controller M S R T C ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9391 Bom

                                             1
                                                                         2049.08FA

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2049 OF 2008

          Smt. Ashabai Asaram Lohokare
          Age : 47 years, Occ : Household,
          R/o Sonai, Tq. Newasa,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.
                                                            ..APPELLANT
                   VERSUS

          1.       The Divisional Controller,
                   Maharashtra State Road Transport
                   Corporation, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar.

          2.       Smt. Latabai Babasaheb Lohokare
                   Age : 23 years, Occ : Household,
                   C/o Eknath Sidhu Bhor,
                   R/o Nagapur, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
          .                                         ..RESPONDENTS
                                     ...
          Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f Mr.C.K. Shinde
          Advocate for respondent no.1:Mr.Manoj Shinde h/f Mr. M.K. Goyanka
          Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr.Nilesh Bhagwat h/f Mr.S.D. Kotkar
                                            ...

                                        CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

DATE : 19.09.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed for enhancement of

compensation.

2049.08FA

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

On 17th January, 2006, deceased Babasaheb

sustained injuries in the accident and died in the hospital.

The deceased was 24 years of age on the date of accident.

3. The claim petition was filed by appellant and

respondent no.2 for getting compensation before the

Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar (for

short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal has awarded amount of

Rs.4,74,900/- to the appellant and respondent no.2. Against

the said judgment and order this appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the monthly

income of the deceased on lesser side. While awarding the

compensation no proper multiplier is applied. The future

prospects and consortium amount are not awarded. Hence

requested to allow the appeal.

2049.08FA

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent no.1 that the deceased was farmer. On that

basis, the notional income is considered by the Tribunal.

While passing the judgment and order, the Tribunal has

considered all the aspects. Hence the judgment and order

passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid.

6. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused

the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

7. The issue involved in this appeal is, not

application of proper multiplier and not awarding the

amount of future prospects and consortium amount.

8. The Tribunal has considered the annual income

of Rs.40,000/- of the deceased. It is the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant that bills of sugar factory

and other documents were produced before the Tribunal to

show the income of the deceased is around Rs.5 to 6 Lakhs

2049.08FA

p.a. from agricultural land, but it was not considered by the

Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered that the deceased

was farmer and only supervisory charges have to be

considered. The petitioner no.1 has stated about income of

deceased, various bills of sugar factory are produced on

record to show that the deceased was taking sugarcane

crop. The Tribunal has observed that Exhibit-50 is receipt of

sugar cane bill for the year 2002-2003, which shows that

the deceased had provided sugarcane of Rs.22,140/-.

Deceased was taking wheat crop in other land, hence, the

Tribunal has considered the notional income of the

deceased of Rs.40,000/- per annum. Considering the

evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in it.

9. The Tribunal has not awarded the amount

towards future prospects, as per the view taken by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680. The deceased was below 40 years of

age and was self employed, hence he is entitled for

2049.08FA

additional income of 40%. The consortium amount is not

awarded. The appellant is the mother and respondent no.2

is the widow of the deceased. As per view taken by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018

SCC Online SC 1546, both i.e. appellant and respondent

no.1 are entitle for Rs.40,000/- each as consortium amount.

10. Admittedly, the proper multiplier is not applied

by the Tribunal. From the record, it appears that at the time

of accident, the deceased was 24 years old. In view of the

judgment of the of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, in

the present case, the multiplier of 18 is applicable.

11. In view of the above calculations, the appellant

and respondent no.2 are entitle for the following

compensation :-

2049.08FA

Sr. Heads Compensation No.

1. Monthly income (Rs.40,000/12) Rs.3,333/-

2. After adding future prospects (40% of Rs.4,666/-

Rs.3,333/- = Rs.1,333/- i.e. Rs.3333+ Rs.1,333)

3. After 1/3rd deduction for personal Rs.3,111/-

expenses (Rs.4,666 X 1/3 = Rs.1,555) i.e. Rs.4,666 - Rs.1,555)

4. Annual income (Rs.3,111 X 12) Rs.37,332/-

5. Multiplier of 18 (Rs.37,332/- x 18) Rs.6,71,976/-

6. After addition of loss of estate (Rs.15,000) Rs.7,81,976/-

+ Consortium (Rs.40,000 X 2) + Funeral expenses (Rs.15,000) = Rs.1,10,000/-

7. Total Rs.7,81,976/-

12. The Tribunal has awarded amount of

Rs.4,74,900/-. In view of the above calculations, the

appellant and respondent no.2 are entitle for Rs.7,81,976/-.

If this amount is deducted from already awarded amount of

Rs.4,74,900/-, it would come to Rs.3,07,076/-.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the

compensation amount, it should be given to the enhanced

amount. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1

submits that as per the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex

2049.08FA

Court in the case of Benson George Vs. Reliance General

Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in 2022 SCC

Online SC 238, the appellant and respondent no.2 are

entitle to get 6% interest on the enhanced amount.

14. In view of the above, I pass the following

order :-

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The appellant and respondent no.2 are entitle for

enhanced amount of Rs.3,07,076/- @ 6% from the date of

filing of the petition till its realization.

(iii) Respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount within eight weeks after receipt of the order.

(iv) The appellant and respondent no.2 are permitted to

withdraw the deposited amount.

2049.08FA

(v) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[S.G.DIGE] JUDGE SGA/-