SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5083

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT
KAVILETHU NEELAKANTAN RAJAN AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
UDAILAL RAMNARAYANI AHIR AND ANR – Respondent
FA/2748/2009



First Appeal No.2748/2009

:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.2748 OF 2009

1.

Shri Kavilethu Neelakantan Rajan,

Age 52 years, Occu. Pensioner,

2.

Sow. Amibily w/o Kavilethu Rajan,

Age 43 years, Occu. Housewife

Both R/o H.No.2125, Vidyanagar,

Arangaon Road, Ahmednagar

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1.

Udailal Ramnarayani Ahir,

Age 42 years, Occu. Transport,

R/o Village Jojro-ka-Kheda,

Tehsil Gangras, Dist. Chittorgarh,

Rajasthan, PIN – 312 001

2.

The Manager,

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance,

Zenith house, Keshavrao Khade Marg,

Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034

(Notice to be served on the

Manager, ICICI Lombard Motor

Insurance, Adventure Towers,

In front of Oberoi Hotel,

Zopadi Canteen, Savedi Road,

Ahmednagar)

… RESPONDENTS

.......

Shri A.C. Darandale, Advocate for appellants

Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri R.H. Dahat with

Shri S.S. Patil, Advocates for respondent No.2.

....…

First Appeal No.2748/2009

:: 2 ::

CORAM :

R. G. AVACHAT, J.

Date of reserving judgment : 29th November, 2021

Date of pronouncing judgment : 28th January, 2022.

J U D G M E N T :

This is an appeal for enhancement of

compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(MACT), Ahmednagar on account of death in vehicular

accident. The Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) was

preferred by the appellants – parents of the deceased Rakesh.

The Tribunal granted a lumpsum compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. The appellants –

claimants, feeling the compensation to have been grossly

inadequate, have preferred the present appeal.

2.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as

follows :-

3.

The deceased Rakesh was the only child of the

appellants herein. He was Last Year student of M.B.A. He

was to appear for the last semester of the M.B.A. He had

cleared all the examinations with very good performance. In

a Campus interview, the Reliance Securities India Ltd. had

offered him a job with annual pay package of Rs.3,00,000/-.

First Appeal No.2748/2009

:: 3 ::

Deceased Rakesh was 22 years of age. He died in an

accident involving motorbike and the truck.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that, the deceased Rakesh had very bright future. He

was the only child of the appellants. He had been offered a

pay package of Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. by a renowned industry.

The Tribunal ought to have granted compensation applying

the requisite formula given in various judgments of the Apex

Court. According to learned counsel, the Apex Court, in case

of Krishna Moorthy (2020) 15 SCC 493, has given certain

principles regarding grant of compensation in case of death of

a student. The learned counsel has also relied on the

following two authorities, to ultimately submit that, the

Tribunal ought to have granted just and adequate

compensation :

(1)

(2020) 15 SCC 493 [ M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs. New India

Assurance Company Ltd. and others ]

(2)

(2015) 2 SCC 180 [ Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs.

Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & anr. ]

(3)

(2020) 9 SCC 644 [ New India Assurance Company

Limited Vs. Somwati & ors. etc. etc. ]

First Appeal No.2748/2009

:: 4 ::

5.

Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore,

urged for allowing the appeal.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance

Company would, on the other hand, submit that, the

deceased was a student. The alleged offer of job was post

the deceased breathed his last. The offer was conditional and

as such, was contingent upon various factors. The deceased

died bachelor. His father, one of the appellants, is an Ex-

serviceman. The mother of the deceased could be said to be

dependent on her husband alone. According to learned

counsel, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, has granted adequate compensation. There is no

warrant for interference with the impugned award

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top