Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 865
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J
Shri. Nitin Baban Dethe – Appellant
Versus
Devendra Deoram Shirsath – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shankar Katkar i/b Manisha Devkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w Ms. Nikita Singh i/b Res Juris
The court corrected the age of the deceased from 65 to 48 years for compensation calculations, reinforcing the principle that oversight in findings can warrant appeal correction under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Issues regarding determination of deceased's age and entitlement for future prospects and consortium amount raised in appeal. Tribunal considered incorrect age based on guesswork, leading to inadequate compensation. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Appellate court's duty is to ensure that the Tribunal's findings align with presented evidence; any oversight in the Tribunal's judgment warrants correction. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
Appellants claimed compensation post-accident, disputing Tribunal's finding of deceased's age as 65 years instead of the claimed 48 years, asserting that no documentary proof was presented.
Findings of Court:
Appellate court determined the deceased's age to be 48 years, correcting Tribunal's oversight; future prospects and consortium amount need to be considered for just compensation.
Issues: The central issue was whether the Tribunal's age determination was valid and whether future prospects were adequately recognized in compensation calculations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that procedural missteps in appeal should not hinder rightful compensation under the beneficial legislation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Result: Appeal allowed, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,05,500/- with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determining age for compensation based on submitted claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. correcting tribunal's oversight in age assessment impacts entitlements. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
1. The issues involved in this appeal are age of deceased, future prospects and consortium amount are not awarded.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the age of deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident, but the Tribunal has considered 65 years old. The claimant no. 2, who is wife of deceased was 40 years old, the claimant no. 1, son of deceased was 21 years old and the claimant no. 3 daughter of deceased was 19 years old at the time of filing claim petition. The FIR in respect of the said accident was filed by the police constable and he on guess work mentioned, the age of deceased as 65 years, and on that basis, in the postmortem report the age of deceased was mentioned as 65 years old. In claim petition, claimants had mentioned the age of deceased as 48 years old but, tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 65 years old which is not proper. Learned counsel further submits that the tribunal has not awarded future prospects as well as consortium amount.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company vehemently submitted that no documentary evidence regarding proper age of deceased was produced before the tribunal. The FIR and postmortem report shows, the age of deceased as 65 years old and, on that basis, the tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 65 year old, which is proper. Learned counsel further submits that moreover, no ground is taken in appeal about age of deceased. So, it cannot be considered. Learned counsel further submits that while awarding compensation, the tribunal has considered all the aspects and on that basis compensation is awarded, which is proper and no interference is required in it.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malshiras (for short ‘the Tribunal’). While dealing with the issue of age of deceased, the tribunal has observed that applicant has contended in the application that deceased was about 48 years old at the time of accident. The applicant has also examined independent witness Bhramhadeo Katkar, who has stated that at the time of accident deceased Baban was 48 years old. First Information Report shows that deceased Baban was 65 years old, in postmortem report age of deceased Baban is mentioned as 65 years old. The applicant did not file any documentary proof to show that deceased Baban was 48 years old. Considering the age mentioned in FIR and postmortem report, the Tribunal has held that deceased was 65 years old at the time of accident. I am unable to understand, the findings given by the tribunal, as the claimants in their claim petition have specifically mentioned the age of deceased as 48 years old. The claimant no. 1 is son of deceased, his age is shown as 21 years old. The claimant no. 2 is wife of deceased, her age in claim petition shown as 40 years old and the claimant no. 3 is daughter of deceased her age is shown as 19 years old. Age mentioned in the claim petition matches with the age of deceased shown in claim petition as 48 years old. The FIR was lodged by the police constable, after the accident. On guess work basis, he has mentioned the age of deceased at about 65 years old and the same is mentioned in postmortem report. The age mentioned by the police constable was only on the basis of guess work. Police constable was not aware about the exact age of the deceased. The claimants were aware about the exact age of deceased and on that basis his age was mentioned in the claim petition. Moreover, the claimants have examined witness to prove the age of deceased, who has stated that, at the time of accident deceased was 48 years old.
5. Now question remains without absence of any documentary proof of age of deceased can it be considered. In my view, the claiman
