IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2803 OF 2008

1. Manik Rambhau Pawar (Died)

(Appellant no.1 deleted as per leave granted by Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.12.2021)

2. Vaijayanti W/o Manik Pawar Age : 50 years, Occ : Household, R/o as above . .. APPELLANTS (Orig. claimants)

VERSUS

1. Kamlakar Atmaram Kadam Age : Major, Occ : Driver, R/o Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

2. Hanumant Govindrao Nagtilak Age : Major, Occ : Business, R/o Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager, Latur . ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. Respondents)

…

Mr.P.S. Chavan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.R.P. Bhumkar, advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr.S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.3.

...

CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

DATE : 02.08.2022 JUDGMENT :

. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, the appellant – original claimant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

On 06.04.2006, the son of the appellants –

claimants viz:- Dattu, a boy around 15 years studying in class- IX was proceeding by road near Sakhara Pati, Latur at that time, Jeep bearing registration No.MH-24/F-3214 gave dash to Dattu, who died on the spot due to injury sustained by him. The said vehicle was driven by respondent no.1- Shri Kamlakar Kadam and owned by respondent no.2 – Hanumant Nagtilak. The said vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.

Crime was registered against respondent no.1.

3. Appellants – original claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (for short, “the Tribunal”) for getting compensation. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. The said judgment and order is under challenge.

4. Heard Mr.P.S. Chavan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.P. Bhumkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.S.V. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for respondent no.3.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not applied the multiplier method while awarding the compensation. Deceased Dattu was more than 15 years old. The Tribunal should have applied the multiplier method for ensuring the just compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for pecuniary losses, future prospects as well as other expenses like funeral expenses. Hence requested to allow the appeal. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 and the judgment of Kerla High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Kandamkulathy Towers, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Represented by its Duty Authorised Officer V/s Sarasu, W/o Gangadharan, Chillikkottathil House, Kolothumparambu, Kedamangalam Kara, Parvavur village and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker. 20473.

6. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing the judgment. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning some amount. The deceased was 16 years old school going boy, hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

7. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.3.

8. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

9. Admittedly the Tribunal has not considered notional income of deceased nor multiplier is applied while awarding compensation. A lumsum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded as compensation. Hence it is necessary to see evidence on record.

10. Deceased Dattu was more than 15 years old. The school leaving certificate produced on record shows his date of birth is 25.06.1990. In the evidence of appellant no.1, it has come on record that the decease