1 First Appeal No. 582.1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 582 OF 1996 1. The Superintendent of Police, DSP Office, Nanded. 2. Assistant Director of Insurance, Maharashtra State, 16th Floor, Administrative Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through District Collector, Nanded. .. .. APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. Kusum W/o Balaji Damkondwar, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Household, 2. Mahesh S/o Balaji Damkondwar, Age Minor. 3. Shubhangi D/o Balaji Damkondwar, Age 8 years, Occup. : Agriculture. 4. Manohar S/o Pandharinath Damkondwar, Age : 50 Years,Occup. Agriculture, 5. Laxmibai W/o Manoharrao Damkondwar, Age : 45 Years, Occup.: Agriculture, Petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors and U/g of their real mother Kusum W/o Balaji Damkondwar, i.e Petitioner No.1. All R/o Sirsi Bk. Past Pethwadj, Taluka Kandhar District Nanded. .. .. RESPONDENTS 2 First Appeal No. 582.1996 Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP for Appellant. Shri V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. to 5 (Absent) .... CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2010. JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellants. Though, respondents served, no one appeared on behalf of respondents, when the matter was called out for hearing. 2. Original Respondents preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Award, dated 22nd March, 1996, passed by the District Judge as an Ex- Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 28 of 1993. The Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) along with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of petition till 25th January, 1994 and from 12th December, 1995 till amount is deposited in the office of Tribunal excluding amount, if any paid under section 140 of 3 First Appeal No. 582.1996 the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER: Balaji Manohar Damkondwar resident of Sirsi Bk. had been to Naigaon to see his relatives on 11th November 1992.On that day at about 22.30 while he was passing by the left side of Nanded- Deglur road to answer the call of nature he was dashed by motor vehicle and died on the spot. 4. The deceased left behind him the old parents, wife and two minor children. They preferred the above mentioned claim petition under the Motor vehicle Act. The claimant respondent No. 1 is the wife. The claimants 2 and 3 are minor children and the claimants 4 and 5 are the old parents of deceased Balaji. In the claim petition they averred that while Balaji was out to answer call of nature and was proceeding by the left side of Nanded, Degloor road, the police van dashed against him and in the accident, he died on the 4 First Appeal No. 582.1996 spot. They submitted that they were wholly dependent for their maintenance on the deceased Balaji who was karta of the family. They submitted that the deceased Balaji owned agricultural land. He was also running grocery shop at the village Sirsi Bk.His income from the agricultural land was about Rs.40,000/- per annum. They claimed Rs. 25000/- on account of loss of consortium of the respondent No.1- widow of deceased, during her prime youth, the amount of Rs.10,000/- each for the minor children, respondent 2 and 3 for loss of love and affection of their father. The respondents 4 and 5 also claimed Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love and affection of their son deceased Balaji. Thus the respondents claimed the total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 5. The appellant, the original respondent No.1 filed written statement on 17th July 1993 and denied the claim. According to them the police van did not dash against the deceased and Balaji did 5 First Appeal No. 582.1996 not die in the motor accident. They submitted that the police van had turned turtle on Naigaon road and taking advantage of that fact the respondents falsely alleged that the deceased met with death in the accident involving the police vehicle and filed false claim against the appellants. They also denied the extent of the compensation claimed by the claimants. 6. The learned Member of the Motor Vehicle Tribunal Nanded held that deceased Balaji met with death in the motor accident involving the Police vehicle and as such the appellants were liable to pay compensation, the learned member of the tribunal held that the respondent were entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- compensation and accordingly passed award on 22nd March 1996. 7. Feeling aggrieved the original respondent preferred this appeal. 6 First Appeal No. 582.1996 . The following points arise for determination in this appeal. 1. Whether the police van of the appellants was involved in the accident in which the deceased Balaji met with death on 11th November 1992? 2.a) whether the compensation awarded by the the tribunal is excessive? b)If so, what should be the compensation? 8. The learned A.G.P vehemently submitted that Balaji did not meet with death in motor vehicle accident involving the appellant’s police van. According to him as the police vehicle had turned turtle about a kilometer from the spot where Balaji died, the respondent falsely involved the police van. He also submitted that the compensation awarded was excessive. 9. I have gone through the record of the case. The claimants examined the respondent No.2 father 7 First Appeal No. 582.1996 of deceased Balaji and P.W. 2 Ramrao Sambhaji Kailashe, the eye witness of the accident in which Balaji meet with death. Sambhaji Kailashe gave evidence that he witnessed the accident and that the police van was involved in the accident in which Balaji met with death on the spot. He was cross-examined at length but his credibility was not shaken. Apart from the existence of the eye witness, the F.I.R and spot panchnama also support the version of the witness Sambhaji. The circumstantial evidence that the police van had turned turtle and was found lying on the road soon after the accident also lends support to the eye witness account of Sambhaji. Consequently, the member of the tribunal is right in holding that the police van was involved in the accident in which Balaji met with accident. 10. As regard compensation payable to the respondents, the Tribunal has taken into consideration sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One 8 First Appeal No. 582.1996 Thousand) per month as contribution to the respondents’ family i.e. near about Rs.33/- per day. In any case Rs. 33/- Per day is not of higher side. Not only that respondents produced documentary evidence on record i. e. 7/12 extract, certificate issued by Officer in-charge of Paithan Project, Income Tax Returns etc. Considering these documents and evidence of P.W.1-Manohar (Respondent No.4)and that deceased Balaji was about 30 yrs of age at the time of the accident, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned A.G.P. that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 11. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstance, the appeal preferred by the Appellants-original respondents deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] MTK.