In motor accident claims, appellate court may enhance compensation without claimants' cross-objection for justness; however, interest on enhanced portion from judgment date if claimants delayed filing cross-objections without explanation, avoiding windfall.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Admit. In view of narrow controversy involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging Judgment and Award dated 12.02.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88/2014 by Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, District Sangli. Under the said impugned Judgment and Award, the Appellant-Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle, has been directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.13,90,000/- inclusive no-fault liability to the Claimants with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim application till realization.

3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under.

3.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Claimants who are wife and son of deceased Pandurang Gopal Dabhole. The claim is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

3.2. The case of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in short, is as under. That on 24/05/2014, when deceased was returning from Karad to Peth on his motorcycle, the offending Bolero Jeep (KA-23-M-9880) came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the deceased from back side. That the deceased suffered serious injury to his head in the accident, who was admitted to hospital; however, he succumbed to the injuries during treatment. That the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant-Insurance company. That the deceased was doing business of a Mandap Decoration and catering, who was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he was only earning member in the family. Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed with interest @ 18% per annum.

3.3. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement, inter alia, disputing the quantum of compensation claimed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also raised other defenses.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Gatne appearing for the Appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the appeal is restricted to submissions on quantum of compensation. He submitted as under. That the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side. That the entries in the savings account of the deceased, relied upon by the Tribunal are in respect of month of May 2014 and it only indicates that in that month the amounts were deposited and the same would not necessarily reflect consistent income of the deceased. That the evidence of Gramvikas Adhikari who deposed that the deceased had deposited tax for Mandap Decoration business would only indicate that a business was being conducted but it cannot be taken as any indication for figure of earning. That the certificate of Sarpanch showing that the deceased was doing business of Mandap Decoration for last 30 years, is also not in clear support of the figure claimed. That the wife of the deceased has admitted that no document is possessed by her in respect of purchase of generator and electric material for Mandap Decoration and that she did not know whether deceased maintained the accounts of business. That she has also admitted that deceased was not doing catering business personally. On these grounds it is contended that impugned award is not sustainable.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Claimants supported the impugned order contending inter alia that the statement of the deceased’s saving acco