Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 701
2009(2) CCR 954 (Bom.)
(Bombay High Court)
Aurangabad Bench
A.En., Kukadi Left Canal Vs. Sh. D.G. Kenge & Ors. (Tated, J.)
HON'BLE K.K. TATED, J.
Asstt. Engineer, Cl. II, Kukadi Left Canal & Anr.
Versus
Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Kenge & Ors.
First Appeal No. 109 of 1995, decided on 08.05.2009
M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P., for Appellant;
P.S. Shendurnikar for R.T. Sharma, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2;
None present for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sec. 110-A — Motor accident claim — Death of 27 years Civil Engineer getting salary Rs. 1694 — Claimants claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation — Trial Court awarded Rs. 1,03,900/- with 12% interest — Cross- objection filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation — Held — Only 1/3 amount should be deducted for personal expenses in calculating compensation — Appropriate multiplier applied by tribunal — Deceased was contributing Rs. 1130/- per month to his family — On the basis of contribution, claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,03,400/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,03,900/- — Trial Court not awarded compensation properly — Award modified accordingly.
(Paras 17 to 20)
Trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% from the date of Application i.e. 10th July, 1989 till realisation of the amount. But considering the present trend of Banking transactions, I hold that the Respondents/ original claimants are entitled interest at the rate of 7% per annum on enhanced compensation from 19th March, 1996, i.e. the date on which they filed Cross Objection till realisation of the amount. In sum and substance, Respondents/ original claimants are entitled 12% interest on enhanced compensation from 10th July, 1989 i.e. date on which Application filed by them for compensation, till 18th March, 1996, the date on which they filed Cross Objections in this Court, and from 19th March, 1996, Respondents are entitled 7% interest per annum on enhanced compensation till realisation of the amount. (Para 20)
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939] /kkjk 110-d & eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok & 1694 :- osru izkIr djus okys 27 o"khZ; flfoy vfHk;ark dh e`R;q & nkosnkjx.k us :- 3]50]000@& izfrdj ds :i esa nkok fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us 12% C;kt lfgr :- 1]03]900@& vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & blds fo:) izfroknh }kjk vihy isk fd;k x;k & izfrdj dh vfHko`f) gsrq nkosnkjksa }kjk izfr-vk{ksi Hkh isk fd;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfrdj dh x.kuk djus esa flQZ 1@3 jkfk O;fDrxr [kpsZ gsrq dVkSrh fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & vf/kdj.k }kjk mfpr xq.kd iz;qDr dh x;h & e`rd vius ifjokj dks :- 1130@& izfrekg ;ksxnku dj jgk Fkk & ;ksxnku ds vk/kkj ij] nkosnkjx.k :- 1]03]900@& ds cnys :- 2]03]400@& izfrdj ds :i esa gdnkj gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mfpr :i ls izfrdj vf/kfuf.kZr ugha fd;k & rn~uqlkj vf/kfu.kZ; lakksf/kr fd;kA
ljdkj dh vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 17 ls 20½
izfr-vk{ksi vakr% Lohdkj fd;kA
2. Present First Appeal filed by original Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the Judgment and award dated 27th January, 1994 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Application No.240 of 1990. The original claimants also preferred Cross Objection Stamp No.6197 of 1996 for enhancement of compensation.
3. In the present case the accident took place on 5th January, 1989 in which one Rajendra Kenge died. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed Motor Accident Claim Application No.240 of 1990 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,900/- to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Application i.e. 10th July, 1989 till realisation of the amount.
4. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the original claimants are entitled compensation in respect of death of Rajendra Kenge to the tune of Rs.1,03,900/- along with interest. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that for calculating the compensation, the multiplier should be 15 years. He further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the evidence on record and awarded excess compensation to the claimants.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ original claimants submitted that the trial Court ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the claimants. Learned counsel for Respondents/ original claimants further submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased used to contribute only 1/3 income of his net salary for house expenses. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that at the time of calculating the compensation, the multiplier should be 17 years. He further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the future prospects of the deceased at the time of calculating the compensation. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel for Respondents submitted that the Cross Objection preferred by them should be allowed in toto.
6. On the basis of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the points arises for consideration, are as under:
i) Whether the trial Court should have taken into consideration 2/3 income of the deceased as contribution towards the family?
ii) Whether the trial Court should have adopted 17 years multiplier at the time of calculating the compensation?
iii) Whether the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration future prospects of the deceased at the time of calculating the compensation?
iv) Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is according to law?
7. With the assistance of learned counsel for both the parties, I have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the present case. The accident took place on 5th January, 1989 in which Rajendra Kenge expired. It is the case of the Respondents/ original claimants that the deceased was Civil Engineer and was working with Irrigation Department. He was earning a sum of Rs.1856/- per month. On the date of accident, his age was 27 years. He used to contribute more than Rs.1200/-per month towards house expenses. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Respondents, relied on salary certificate issued by Irrigation Department, Pune dated 16th February, 1989 at Exhibit 36. Exhibit 36 shows that the deceased was getting net salary of Rs.1694/-. Even the PW1 Dattatraya Ganpat Kenge, father of deceased in his evidence stated that his son was drawing a salary of Rs.1856/- per month. He further stated in his evidence that out of his salary, the deceased used to pay Rs.900/- to Rs.1000/- to them for their expenses. Considering these facts, the trial Court held that the deceased use
