224-A-J-FA 600-07 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO.600 OF 2007 1. [ENTITY] wd/o [ENTITY] Aged about 40 yrs. Occupation : Housewife 2. [ENTITY] d/o [ENTITY] Aged about 18 yrs. Occupation : Student 3. [ENTITY] d/o [ENTITY] Aged about 5 years (Minor) Through her mother [ENTITY] 4. [ENTITY] wd/o [ENTITY] Aged about 65 yrs (Minor) Occupation : Household work All R/o Gokul Colony, [ENTITY] Dist. [ENTITY] Appellants. -vs- 1. [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] Adult, Occupation : Driver R/o near Saraswati Dairy Mukteshwar Buidling, R. K. Remta Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 66 2. M/s Transafe Express, Arihant, 5th floor, Ahamadad Street, Mumbai - 71 3. M/s Newman Lefine Pvt. Ltd. 758, Marshel House, Calcutta 700 001 4. National Insurance Company Ltd. Thr. Divisional Manager, [ENTITY], Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:33 224-A-J-FA 600-07 2/5 Dist. [ENTITY] 5. [ENTITY], Aged 40 yrs., Occ. Doctor R/o [ENTITY], Old City Tal. [ENTITY], Dist. [ENTITY] Respondents. Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for appellants. Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for respondent No.4/Insurance Company. CORAM : [ENTITY], J.
DATE : February 04, 2019 Oral Judgment :
This appeal under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, the said Act) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in [CASE NUMBER].
2. On 22/01/2000 four persons were proceeding in a car when at about 8.30 pm a truck coming from opposite direction gave a dash to it. The said car was owned by Dr [ENTITY] who was injured in the said accident. Two persons viz. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] suffered grievous injuries and they succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of [ENTITY] filed [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] of the said Act seeking grant of compensation. After considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,21,500/- as compensation. Not being satisfied with the said quantum of compensation the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the nature of evidence on record, the claimants were entitled for higher compensation. Vide Exhibit-54 salary certificate of said [ENTITY] was placed on record. He was working as a Junior Clerk with the Staff Selection Commission. He was receiving salary of Rs.8,742/-/- per month. The deductions made from that amount while awarding compensation were not in accordance with law. Considering the age of the deceased it was clear that the claimants were entitled for higher compensation. Placing reliance on the decisions in [PRECEDENT] and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. [ENTITY] and ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 it was submitted that the amount of compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced.
4. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent No.4- Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the evidence led by the claimants was duly considered by the Claims Tribunal and fair compensation was awarded. No further enhancement was liable to be granted thereon. He therefore submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
5. In the light of aforesaid submissions, the following point arises for consideration :
" Whether the appellants are entitled for higher compensation ?"
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the evidence on record. The award as passed by the Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.7,21,500/- is not under challenge by the insurer. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the car which met with an accident and the other factual aspects with regard to the salary of the deceased and his date of birth are not in question. The only aspect required to be considered is the determination of just and fair compensation. The date of birth of the deceased as per Exhibit-50 was shown as 31/08/1959 which indicates that he was aged about 41 years when the accident took place. His engagement as a Junior Clerk is also not questioned. The salary certificate at Exhibit-54 indicates gross salary of Rs.8,742/- p.m. After deducting the amount towards profession tax of Rs.150/- the net salary would be Rs.8,592/- per month. In the light of the decision in [ENTITY] and ors. (supra) 30% amount is liable to be granted towards future prospects. The same would be Rs.11,170/-. 1/4th amount is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses in the light of the fact that there were five dependents in the family. The monthly figure therefore would be Rs.8,378/- while the annual income would be Rs.1,00,536/-. By applying multiplier of 14 in view of the law laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra) figure of Rs.14,07,504/- is arrived at. An amount of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads is payable. As Rs. 9500/- was granted by the Claims Tribunal on that count, the balance amount on that count would be Rs.60,500/-. The same would give a total of round figure of Rs.14,68,000/-. Amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted for the medical bills is maintained. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded which is Rs.6,72,000/-, the compensation to be enhanced would be Rs.7,96,000/-. This would be the amount of just compensation determined after applying the ratio of the decisions referred to herein above. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed :
(i) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal dated 18/10/2006 in [CASE NUMBER] is partly modified.
(ii) It is held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,68,000/-. After deducting the amount of compensation already awarded, the balance compensation of Rs.7,96,000/- shall be paid with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
(iii) The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE [ENTITY]