Full Judgment Text
fa209.06.J.odt ..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2006
1] Bhavana Pradipkumar Nagrecha,
Aged about 34 yrs. OccupHousewife,
Residing at Post Wadhona Ramnath,
Tahsil Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District – Amravati.
2] Alpesh S/o Pradip Nagrecha,
Aged about 11 years. OccupStudent.
R/oPost Wadhona Ramnath,
Tahsil Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District – Amravati.
3] Pawan S/o Pradip Nagrecha,
Aged about 7 years. OccupStudent,
R/oPost Wadhona Ramnah,
Tahsil Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District – Amravati.
(Appellant Nos.2 and 3 minors,
Through their natural guardian mother
Appellant No.1) …. APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
1] M/s. Dharshibhai Jethabhai & Sons,
and S. V. Patel Road, at Post Bhosa,
at Yavatmal, Tah & Dist Yavatmal.
(Owner of Tata Oil Tank
No. MH29/7601).
2] Shri Syed Afzal S/o Syed Ahmed,
Aged about 45 years, OccupDriver,
R/oWard No.20, House No.130,
Kalamb Chowk, Yavatmal.
3] United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Amravati Office, Kanchan
Building, above Satish MotorsBadnera
Road, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::
fa209.06.J.odt ..2..
Shri A. A. Choube, Advocate h/f. Shri A. A. Naik, Advocate
for Appellants.
Shri D. N. Kukday, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: DR.(SMT) SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI,J.
nd
DATE: 2 AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the original claimants
challenging the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition
No.255/2000 vide its judgment and award dated 08.02.2006.
02] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :
The appellant No.1 is widow and appellant Nos.2
and 3 are the sons of deceased Pradipkumar. At the time of
accident, deceased was aged about 40 years and doing
agricultural as well as business of running a grocery shop in the
name and style of “Keshaolal Bhimji Kirana Shop,” at Wadhona
Ramnath, TahsilNandgaon Khandeshwar, District – Amravati.
He was earning the income of Rs.7,500/ per month and paying
yearly income tax of Rs.4,510/. The appellants were totally
dependent on his income.
03] As per the case of appellants, on account of his death
on 06.06.2000 in the vehicular accident, they have lost their only
source of income. The accident that took away his life was in
between his vehicle Marshal Sumo bearing No. MH27/H445
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::
fa209.06.J.odt ..3..
and the Tata Oil Tanker bearing No. MH297601. The accident
took place at Chor Mahuly, State Highway No.6 at 2.45 p. m..
The said Truck was driven by the respondent No.2, it was owned
by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. The
police has registered an offence against the Truck driver bearing
Crime No.64/2000 for various offences punishable under Sections
279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
04] The appellants had, therefore, claimed the
compensation from the respondents jointly and severally
contending inter alia that if deceased had remained for further
period of 30 years, he would have earned the income of
Rs.90,000/ per year and therefore, having regard to the financial
loss which they have suffered on account of his death and also the
loss of love, affection and consortium, the total amount of
compensation claimed by the appellants in the petition filed
before the Tribunal was Rs.36,15,000/. However, they restricted
their claim to Rs.15,00,000/ since they were unable to pay the
required Court fees.
05] This petition came to be resisted by the respondent
No.3 alone as respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to contest the same,
despite due service of notice,raising various contentions including
the one that the amount claimed by the appellants towards
compensation is exorbitant and excessive. It was denied that
deceased would have remained alive for further 30 years and he
would have earned the income of Rs.90,000/ per year. It was
submitted that the appellants be put to strict proof of the income
of the deceased and his future prospects.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::
fa209.06.J.odt ..4..
06] On these respective pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration vide
Exh.15. In support of her case, the appellant No.1 examined
herself; whereas respondent No.3 examined its employee
Chandrakant Ingle.
07] On appreciation of this evidence, learned Tribunal
was pleased to hold that the cause of accident was rash and
negligent driving of the Tanker and hence, respondent Nos.1 to 3
were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
appellants. This findings of the learned Tribunal is not challenged
by any of the respondents, either by preferring cross objection or
filing any counter appeal. Hence, it has attained finality. Even
otherwise also it is based on the evidence on record, which is
found to be appreciated properly by the Tribunal.
08] Hence, the only point which arises for my
determination in this appeal is whether the compensation amount
as awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and adequate or it calls for
enhancement, as claimed by the appellants.
09] The evidence of appellant No.1 goes to prove that
her husband was running a grocery shop in the name and style as
“Keshaolal Bhimji Kirana Shop” at Wadhona Ramnath and he was
earning the income of Rs.7,500/ per month. He has paid income
tax of Rs.4,510/ on the income of Rs.77,550/ in the income tax
return submitted on 31.08.1999. She has produced the original
income tax return at Exh.30. In my considered opinion, this
income tax return, therefore, can be safely relied upon to hold
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::
fa209.06.J.odt ..5..
that the monthly income of the deceased as per the income tax
return comes to Rs.6,500/.
10] According to the learned counsel for the appellants,
considering the age of the deceased which was only 40 years at
the time of accident and having regards to the fact that he was
already having established business of grocery shop, he would
have definitely earned some more income on account of earning
of good will and reputation in the said business. I find much
substance in this submission because the Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that as much the business becomes old, it earns
more income on account of establishment of its reputation and
good will. Therefore, 15% income of the deceased can be added
towards the future prospects.
11] Considering the age of the deceased, the proper
multiplier would be 15%. The Tribunal has awarded some
meager amount towards the loss of love, affection and consortium
which amount, now in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others ..vs.. Rajbir Singh
and Others, reported in 2014(1) Mh. L. J. 79 , needs to be
enhanced.
12] The total amount of compensation to which the
appellants thus become entitled, can be reassessed as follows :
Sr. No. HEADS CALCULATION
(i) Income from business Rs.6,500/ per month
(ii) 15% of (i) above to be added as
future prospects
Rs.6,500 + Rs.975 =
Rs.7,475
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::
fa209.06.J.odt ..6..
(iii) 1/3rd of the same to be deducted as
personal expenses of the deceased
Rs.7475 Rs.2491 =
Rs.4,984
(iv) Compensation after multiplier of 15
is applied
Rs.4,984 x 12 x 15 =
Rs.8,97,120
(v) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/
(vi) Loss of care and guidance for two
minor children
Rs.1,00,000/
(vii) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED
Rs.11,22,120/
13] Thus, the appeal needs to be allowed and
accordingly, it is allowed. The appellants are held entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.11,22,120/ inclusive of no fault
liability, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition
till its realization.
14] As the respondent No.3 has already deposited
amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in the Court.
That amount be adjusted towards the total amount of
compensation as awarded by this Court.
JUDGE
PBP
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:04 :::