Bombay High Court
M.S.R.T.C., Thr Its Div. Controller, ... vs Meena Sanjay Bawale And Ors on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2023:BHC-AUG:26097-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.183 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.617 OF 2020 IN FA/183/2020
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its
Divisional Controller,
Division Office, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
... Appellant
... Versus ...
1 Meena w/o Sanjay Bawale,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o Kallam, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
At present r/o Shivneri Colony,
Shri. Ram Nagar, Beed.
2 Uttkarsha d/o Sanjay Bawale,
Age 23 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o as above.
3 Yogesh Sanjay Bawale,
Age 18 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o as above.
4 Himmatrao Manoharrao Bawale,
Age 68 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o as above.
5 Gayabai w/o Himmatrao Bawale,
Age 63 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o as above.
6 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Lenin House, Keshavrao Khade Marg,
2 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
Mumbai through its Branch Manager,
Alaknanda Complex, Adalat Road,
Near Baba Petrol Pump,
Aurangabad.
... Respondents
...
Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr. A.R. Barhate, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3691 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14311 OF 2019 IN FA/3691/2019
1 Meena w/o Sanjay Bawale,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o Kallam, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
At present r/o Shivswapn Nivas,
Malicha Wada, Vishal Nagar,
Latur, Dist. Latur.
2 Utkarsha d/o Sanjay Bawale,
Age 23 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o as above.
3 Yogesh Sanjay Bawale,
Age 18 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o as above.
... Appellants
... Versus ...
3 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
1 Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through
Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Alaknanda Complex, Adalat Road,
Near Baba Petrol Pump,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3 Himmatrao Manoharrao Bawale,
Age 68 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Itkur, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
4 Gayabai w/o Himmatrao Bawale,
Age 63 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Itkur, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
... Respondents
...
Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for appellants
Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 31st OCTOBER, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th DECEMBER, 2023
4 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
JUDGMENT :
( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 The present appeals are arising out of the Judgment and Award
passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.85/2011 by the learned Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed on 14.08.2019, whereby the said claim
petition came to be partly allowed. Here, the First Appeal No.183 of 2020 is
filed by original respondent No.1, whereas First Appeal No.3691 of 2019 is
filed by original claimant Nos.1 to 3 and, therefore, both the appeals are
proposed to be decided by this common Judgment. (For the sake of
convenience hereinafter the parties are referred to by their original
nomenclature before the Tribunal.)
2 The claimants, who are the legal representatives of deceased
Sanjay Himmatrao Bawale, have come with a case that original claimant
No.1 is the widow, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are their children, and claimant
Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Dr. Sanjay Himmatrao Bawale.
Deceased Dr. Sanjay was the medical practitioner as well as he was in the
business of ginning and agriculturist. His income was Rs.10,00,000/- per
year from all the sources of income. Deceased was 43 years old person, who
had obtained Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery in the year 1999
and started practice under the name and style "Suyash Clinic" at Kallam, Dist.
Osmanabad. After closing the clinic on 24.12.2010 he was proceeding
5 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
towards Latur from Kallam in order to meet his children, who were taking
education in Latur city. He was driving car bearing No.MH 24-V-1691. When
he had reached Murud-Akola on Kallam Latur road at about 1.00 a.m. on
25.12.2010, one S.T. Bus bearing No.MH 20-BL-0476 came from opposite
direction in high speed, rashly and negligently. The said bus gave dash to the
car driven by the deceased, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased. He
was shifted to Civil Hospital, Latur, however, he was declared dead. The
accident had taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of bus driver.
Offence was registered against said driver vide Crime No.87/2010 under
Section 304-A, 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Spot panchnama as well as
inquest panchnama have been prepared, which have been produced on
record. The claimants further contend that the deceased was getting
Rs.5,00,000/- per year income from his medical practice and he was paying
income tax since 2001. His holding of the agricultural land was to the extent
of 30 acres and with the help of labours and his person supervision he was
getting around Rs.5,00,000/- per year income from the agriculture. With the
amount which he had saved, he decided to invest it in installation of ginning
and pressing factory at Kothewadi, Tq. Kallam. He had raised Rs.2 crores,
out of which amount of Rs.1 crore was his personal funds and he obtained
loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Kallam to the extent of Rs.1
crore. The construction of the factory and installation was completed and the
6 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
production was likely to start from 01.01.2011, but due to unfortunate
demise of the deceased his dream to run the said factory could not be
completed. That would have earned him net income of more than Rs.50 to
60 lacs per year. He had also started Ashram schools at Kallam under the
name "Shri. Vithumauli Balsadan" and at Borgaon (Bk), Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed
under the name "Shri. Vithumauli Balakashram", which was catering for
more than 200 students. Deceased was incurring expenses on the said
Ashrams from his personal funds. The claimants, therefore, claimed
compensation of Rs.9,79,10,000/- together with interest.
3 Respondent No.1 filed written statement at Exh.12 and
specifically denied all the contents of the petition. It has been submitted that
one Sayyad Rafiq Ismail was driving the S.T. bus from Nanded to Kolhapur.
When the said bus came near Sakhar pati village, at that time one car came
from opposite direction in zigzag manner. The driver of the S.T. bus has
taken his bus to the extreme left and stopped it by applying right side
indicator, however, at that time the car had given dash to the right side of the
bus. The accident took place due to the sole negligence of the car driver.
The owner of the car is necessary party, so also the insurance company. As
the driver of the S.T. bus was not negligent or rash, the Corporation is not
responsible to pay the compensation.
7 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
4 It appears that respondent No.2 i.e. the insurance company, with
which the car was insured on the date of the accident came to be added as
party at a later stage. After respondent No.2 was added, the insurance
company has filed its written statement at Exh.39 and denied the contents of
the petition. Age, income and the details of the sources of income as well as
the details of the family members has been denied. It has been stated that
the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence and,
therefore, there is breach of terms of policy. The insurance company is not
liable to pay compensation as the driver of the bus was negligence and he has
been prosecuted. The policy which was taken was the indemnify the liability
incurred towards third person or in respect of damage to the property.
Therefore, the owner of the vehicle being not a person who can be said to be
third party, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company in respect
of his death.
5 On the basis of rival contentions issues came to be framed and
then recasted. Thereafter claimants have examined the widow and a Bank
employee to support their claim. They have produced certain documents on
record also. Respondent No.1 examined Sayyad Rafiq Sayyad Ismail i.e. the
driver of the bus. Respondent No.2 has not led any evidence. Taking into
consideration the evidence on record and hearing both sides the learned
8 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. It was held that the accident took
place due to the sole negligence on the part of the S.T. driver and, therefore,
respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle is vicariously liable
to pay the compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.1 was directed to
pay amount of Rs.52,81,500/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of the petition till actual realization of the amount of the
compensation. As aforesaid, both the parties i.e. respondent No.1 as well as
the original claimants have challenged the said Judgment and Award. The
challenge by respondent No.1 is on all counts, whereas the challenge by the
original claimants is to the extent of amount of compensation and they have
claimed the enhancement in the compensation.
6 Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Wange for the appellant,
learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Choudhari for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned
Advocate Mr. A.R. Barhate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in First Appeal No.183
of 2020; and learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Choudhari for appellants, learned
Advocate Mr. A.D. Wange for respondent No.1, learned Advocate Mr. V.N.
Upadhye for respondent No.2 and learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Thombre for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in First Appeal No.3691 of 2019.
7 It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of respondent No.1
- Corporation that the learned Tribunal failed in appreciating the evidence.
9 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
The claimants had not examined any person to prove the alleged rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of respondent No.1. CW 1 Meena
is the widow of deceased and in her cross-examination she has clearly
admitted that she has not witnessed the accident. The respondent has
examined its driver Sayyad Rafiq Sayyad Ismail as RW 1. Sayyad Rafiq has
clearly stated on oath that when he saw the car coming in zigzag manner, he
had taken his car to the left side of the road by putting on the indicators of
the bus on the right side, still the car gave dash to the right side of the S.T.
bus. The cross-examination on behalf of the claimants would show that he
has only admitted a fact that the First Information Report was filed against
him and he has been charge sheeted. The opinion of the police is not binding
on this Court when claimants have not examined any eye witness, then the
testimony of RW 1 Sayyad Rafiq assumes importance, which ought to have
been considered by the learned trial Judge. The claimants have failed to
prove that the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of
bus driver. The claimants were, therefore, not entitled to get compensation
from respondent No.1
8 The learned Advocate for the claimants supported the reasons
given by the learned Tribunal on the point of rashness and negligence, as it
has been held that only the bus driver was negligent. The copy of the First
10 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
Information Report has been produced at Exh.46, which is after an inquiry,
panchnama of the spot was carried out and if we consider the panchnama,
then, the spot of the accident does not support the picture painted by
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has not examined any other witness, who
might have been travelling from the S.T. bus at the relevant time to support
the testimony of RW 1 Sayyad Rafiq. The interested words of RW 1 Sayyad
Rafiq rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal, however, the Tribunal erred
in arriving at the income figure of the deceased.
9 The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that various
Income Tax Returns have been produced on record. Learned Tribunal has
taken note of the recent Income Tax Returns Exh.58, which was for the
Assessment Year of 2009-2010, which was just prior to the death of Dr.
Sanjay. The degree certificate of Dr. Sanjay has been produced on record. He
had obtained the said degree of B.A.M.S. in 1999. The 7/12 extract has also
been produced on record which shows that 34 R land stood in the name of
deceased at village Borgaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. The statement of account
of Shivkripa Ginning and Pressing Factory has been produced on record and
in order to prove that State Bank had given loan of Rs.1 crore to deceased.
Claimants have examined CW 2 Krishnakant Marotirao Kale, Manager, State
Bank of India, Branch Kallam. No doubt, after death of proprietor of the said
11 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
company viz. Dr. Sanjay Himmatrao Bawale the account has become Non
Performing Asset (NPA) and the outstanding amount has gone up to
Rs.2,27,00,000/-. In fact, it ought to have been considered by the Tribunal
that as deceased was found to be eligible to get the loan, in other words it
was found that he can repay the said loan amount of Rs.1 crore, the loan was
granted. The profits in the business would have started from January, 2011,
but unfortunately Dr. Sanjay expired on 25.12.2010. Income from the said
additional source of income ought to have been considered by the learned
Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the claimants has relied on Single Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Mohini Ganesh Lonkar and another vs.
Dnyaneshwar Maruti Waghmare and others reported in 2017 (4) ALL M.R.
162, wherein more amount of compensation was apportioned to the minor
children and then equal to widow and parents of the deceased. He canvassed
that the amount of compensation ought not to have been distributed. He
submitted that the claimants are entitled to get enhancement in the
compensation as the figure arrived at by the Tribunal is meagre and not
based on the evidence adduced.
10 Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - insurance company
supported the reasons given by the learned Tribunal for holding driver of the
bus responsible for the accident and imposing responsibility on the
12 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
respondent No.1 - Corporation, whereas the learned Advocate for the parents
of deceased submitted that the distribution should be equal as everybody was
dependent on the income of the deceased.
11 Taking into consideration the rival contentions following points
are arising for determination, findings and reasons for the same are as
follows.
Sr. Nos. POINTS FINDINGS
01 Whether claimants have proved that the In the affirmative.
accident was caused due to the rashness
and negligence in the driving of Sayyad
Rafiq while driving bus bearing No.MH
20-BL-0476 ?
02 Whether the claimants are entitled to get In the affirmative.
compensation and in view of the appeal As per final order.
for enhancement whether they are
entitled to get enhancement in the
compensation ? If yes, what should be
the just amount of compensation ?
REASONS
Point No.1 :
12 The claimants have not examined any eye witness to the
incident. CW 1 Meena, widow of the deceased, is not an eye witness. How
she came to know about the accident has also not been disclosed by her,
however, she has relied on public documents like certified copy of First
13 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
Information Report Exh.46, certified copy of spot panchnama Exh.47,
certified copy of inquest panchnama Exh.49 and certified copy of Postmortem
Report Exh.50. Important point to be noted is that she had stated that the
accident has taken place around 1.00 a.m. of 25.12.2010 and this fact is
admitted by RW 1 Sayyad Rafiq. In his examination-in-chief he has stated
that he was driving bus bearing No.MH 20-BL-0476 from Nanded to
Kolhapur. At night time the S.T. bus came near Sakhar Pati. According to
him, the car driver was coming from opposite direction in high speed, rashly
and in zigzag manner. He, therefore, took his bus on the extreme left of the
road and put on the indicator of the right side, but during that process the
car came and dashed to the right side of the bus. Here, respondent No.1 has
not examined any other witness to support the contention of the driver. No
doubt, it would be the initial burden on the claimants to prove the negligence
on the part of the driver of the opposite vehicle, however, public documents
are produced on record which would show that after an inquiry the First
Information Report came to be lodged and though it has not come on record
directly it appears that the charge sheet has also been filed against RW 1
Sayyad Rafiq. In his cross-examination he has admitted that neither he nor
respondent No.1 have filed any proceedings for quashing the prosecution
against him. He has voluntarily stated in the cross that he had gone to lodge
a report to the Police Station stating that the car driver was negligent and the
14 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the car driver. He
then says that his complaint was not taken. He cannot escape by saying so,
that too afterwards. He had the opportunity to send the complaint through
Post or make a complaint with the superior authority in the Police
Department, when his complaint was allegedly refused to be taken down. It
is very easy to say at a later point of time that he had gone but police had not
recorded his complaint. We find that testimony of RW 1 Sayyad Rafiq is
interested. Since the accident has taken place at night time i.e. 1.00 a.m.,
there would be almost no possibility of an eye witness, but the passengers
from the bus and even the Conductor of the bus could have been examined to
state that after the bus was taken to its left side they heard noise of collusion.
Here, in this case, we could find that even the spot panchnama is not giving a
clear picture. The width of the road has not been stated. Though it is stated
that the bus was towards its left, the car is shown to have gone into the ditch
on its left side, but we were interested in getting the point of impact i.e. the
place where the two vehicles collided with each other. If we go by the
diagram, that place is shown towards the right side of the bus but behind the
driver's side. If the collusion was at that place where the bus was standing,
then, the car could have got embedded in the bus. Here, the car is Maruti
Alto, which can be said to be a small car and because of even small push it
may get thrown away at much distance. Therefore, when in spite of
15 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
availability of adducing evidence, the respondent No.1 - Corporation has not
adduced the evidence of proper witness and, therefore, we cannot rely on the
interested words of the driver of the bus, who has been prosecuted. Under
the said circumstance, we hold that the claimants have proved that the
accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the bus driver.
The point is, therefore, answered in the affirmative.
Point No.2 :
13 In view of the findings to point No.1 in the affirmative the
natural corollary would be that the driver Sayyad Rafiq and the respondent
Corporation vicariously would be liable to pay compensation to the legal
representatives of deceased Dr. Sanjay. The provisions in respect of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and other Sections are benevolent provisions
and it is settled principle of law that, in such cases the Tribunal is bound to
grant just compensation. The word 'just' herein includes adequate, sufficient
compensation based on the evidence i.e. adduced by the claimants. While
arriving at the amount of compensation we are guided by various decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Here, the Tribunal has considered yearly income as
Rs.4,95,000/- including the addition of future prospects. According to the
claimants, income of the deceased from various sources was Rs.10,00,000/-
per year. Therefore, when it was found by the claimants that whatever has
16 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
been granted by the Tribunal was inadequate, the First Appeal has been filed
for the enhancement.
14 The claimants have relied on the photo copy of degree certificate
of the deceased at Exh.59 and it appears that there is no much dispute even
as regards his qualification. However, the claimants have contended that the
earning from medical profession was Rs.5,00,000/- per year and the income
from agricultural land was Rs.5,00,000/- per year. The 7/12 extract which is
on record would show that he is having only 03 H 34 R land in Gat No.29 at
Borgaon, in which he used to take crop like jowar, bajra and cotton. The 8-A
extract of his father shows that he has 10 H 99 R land, however, we cannot
take note of the income from the land which is standing in the name of his
father. It is impossible that the land which is standing in his name alone
would be giving him income of Rs.5,00,000/- per year. Further, there is no
evidence to show that after his demise the said land has been sold by
claimants. The land is still available with the claimants, at the most the
claimants would be entitled to get compensation under the head "Loss of
Estate".
15 The claimants have produced various Income Tax Returns, which
appeared to be starting from year 2002, at that time his income has been
shown as Rs.49,860/- per annum. It has been gradually increased and we
17 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
are required to take note of the last Income Tax Return for the Assessment
Year 2009-2010. The gross total income has been shown as Rs.3,96,305/-
and in fact, it is from all the sources. The claimants have not stated that even
during that period i.e. Assessment Year 2009-2010 the income from Ginning
and Pressing Factory was available to the deceased. Under the said
circumstance, only the income has been shown in Exh.58 Income Tax Returns
is required to be considered. The same has been taken a note of by the
learned trial Judge by taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 AIR
(SC) 5157]. As per the Postmortem Report, age of the deceased has been
taken 45 years. The Income Tax Returns filed by him do not bear his date of
birth, but only the PAN has been given. Therefore, we have to take the age
stated in Postmortem Report as the basis for further calculations. The
learned Tribunal taking note of Pranay Sethi (supra) and the fact that
deceased was self employed has included 25% rise towards the future
prospectus and, therefore, arrived at yearly income of the deceased at
Rs.4,95,000/-.
16 Now, objection has been raised as regards non inclusion of the
income that deceased would have received. If the ginning factory would
have been started and proceeded, it was supposed to get profit from 2011
18 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
onwards. We are not impressed by the submissions on behalf of original
claimants on this point. What has been produced on record is the evidence of
CW 2 Krishnakant Kale, who was the Manager of the Bank, from where
deceased had obtained loan. He has submitted that loan of Rs.1 crore was
sanctioned to deceased, but he says that it was the limit of Rs.1 crore. It was
a Term Loan Account. The best evidence which he could have through him
that could have come on record is, which documents he had produced along
with the loan proposal, what was considered by the Bank while sanctioning
the said Term Loan, where any search report or project report was submitted
etc. But in spite of availability of those documents, those have not been
produced. Another factor to be noted is that deceased was shown to be the
proprietor of Shivkripa Ginning and Pressing Company. When he was a
professional i.e. a registered Medical Practitioner, then whether he could have
been allotted to run such factory by showing him as the proprietor itself, is a
question. Each profession has its own rules and regulations and, therefore,
while continuing to serve as Medical Practitioner whether he could have
taken up the proprietorship, is a question. But without going into further
aspects on that point the income which was not available on the date of
death of a person and the profit which itself is a predictable subject cannot be
considered to add the income figure. The learned trial Judge has rightly
rejected the alleged source of income which deceased earned on the date of
19 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
his death.
17 The claimants were five in number and, therefore, taking into
consideration the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] personal expenses have been
rightly deducted at ¼th and, therefore, the annual dependency of the
claimants have been rightly calculated at Rs.3,71,250/-. Further, in view of
deceased was 45 years old, Rs.3,71250/- multiplied by 14. The
compensation under loss of dependency has been rightly calculated at
Rs.51,97,500/-.
18 The further calculation by the learned Tribunal was on the basis
of Pranay Sethi (supra) in respect of loss of consortium, funeral, love and
affection etc. However, now, we will have to consider the decision in Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
others [2018 (4) TAC 345]. Thereafter amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded
each to claimant Nos.1 to 3 towards loss of consortium, love and affection
respectively. That amount comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. Amount of Rs.48,000/-
each is given to claimant Nos.4 and 5 i.e. the parents towards loss of
consortium/filial in view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). That
amount comes to Rs.96,000/-. Amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards
loss of estate and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral in view of
20 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co Ltd. (supra). Thus,
the claimants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.55,18,500/-
(Rs.51,97,500/- + Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs.96,000/- + Rs.30,000/- +
Rs.15,000/-).
19 This amount of Rs.55,18,500/- would be then inclusive of the
amount awarded by the Tribunal, which itself was inclusive of amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards No Fault Liability i.e. Rs.52,81,500/-. It appears from
order dated 20.01.2020 passed by this Court that ad interim stay was granted
by this Court in favour of the Corporation on condition of deposit of 50% of
the amount recoverable under the Award passed by the Tribunal. Then the
original claimants were allowed to withdraw the said 50% of the amount on
submitting undertaking to the Court. Under the said circumstance, even
from the said amount of Rs.52,81,500/- together with interest only 50%
amount appears to have been allowed to be withdrawn by the original
claimants. In the meantime original claimant Nos.2 and 3 have become
major. All these facts are taken note of. Accordingly, the point is answered in
the affirmative.
20 We are of the view that the entire enhanced amount should be
given to claimant No.1 since she is looking after the affairs of the family and
also to repay the loan amount. The rate of interest that was awarded was @
21 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
9%, however, taking into consideration the present rate of interests and the
enhancement that we are granting from today, we grant the rate of interest @
6% per annum for enhanced amount only.
21 In view of the findings to both the points, the appeal filed by the
Corporation deserves to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the original
claimant Nos.1 to 3 deserves to be allowed partly, as certainly they are not
entitled to get the amount claimed by them.
22 For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1 First Appeal No.183 of 2020 stands dismissed.
2 First Appeal No.3691 of 2019 stands partly allowed.
3 The Judgment and Award passed in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.85/2011 to the extent of grant of compensation stands modified
as follows :
"i) It is hereby held that claimant Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to
receive amount of Rs.55,18,500/- (inclusive of amount of
Rs.52,81,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, which itself was
22 FA_183_2020+1_Jd
inclusive of amount of Rs.50,000/- towards No Fault Liability)
together with interest. The rate of interest granted by the
Tribunal on Rs.52,81,500/- is maintained as it is, however, as
regards enhanced amount is concerned, interest to be paid @
6% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the Award by
the Tribunal i.e. 14.08.2019 till its actual realization.
ii) The amount which has been already withdrawn by the
claimants should be deducted from the above awarded amount.
iii) Distribution of amount which is without enhancement to
be done as per order passed by the Tribunal amongst the
original claimants. However, as regards the enhanced amount is
concerned, the entire amount be given to claimant No.1 since
she is looking after the affairs of the family and also to repay the
loan amount.
iv) Award be prepared accordingly."
4 Civil Applications stand disposed of.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
Signed by: Amol G. Donge
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/12/2023 11:27:06
