1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No. 207 of 1996 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Dhue, District Dhule. 2. Tahsildar, Shirpur, Taluka ..Appellants/ Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. ori.opponents versus 1. Smt. Kalawatibai Ramdas Patil age major,resident of Bhatpur Taluka Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. Ramesh Trimbak Patil, age 40 years, occupation : service, resident of Shirpur, Tahsil ..Respondents/ Shirpur, District Dhule. No.1 orig. claimant, No.2 orig. opponent No. ------- 2. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the appellant. Shri D.G.Chevale Advocate, holding for Shri P.R.Patil Advocate for Respondent No.1. 2 Coram: P.R.Borkar J. Date: July 15, 2009.' Oral Judgment 01. This first appeal is preferred by original Respondent-State, being aggrieved by judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.59 of 1989 decided on 2.8.1995, whereby present Respondent No.1-claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,000/= inclusive of N.F.L. amount of Rs.15,000/=. 02. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows; Jeep bearing No.MAC-3081 belonging to the Government was given for use to Tahsildar,Shirpur. The jeep was driven by Respondent No. 2 Ramesh Patil on 23.10.1988 . On that day, husband of Respondent No.1, namely, Ramdas Patil had gone to village Balde for attending function of laying down foundation stone of construction of a high- 3 school building and while he was returning, he was allowed to travel in the said jeep driven by Respondent No.2. When the jeep was near mile stone No.206/4 on the high way, it dashed a tree by the side of the road. As a result, Ramdas was injured and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. 03. It is also case of Respondent No. 1 that the deceased was 45 years old. He was doing social activities and was President of Samaj Shikshan Prasarak Society and also Sarpanch of the Village and chairman of the society. He had agricultural lands and so compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/= was claimed. 04. Present appellant filed written statement at Exh.20 and denied the claim of the claimant. It is said that the driver was not negligent and the deceased had no right to travel in the said vehicle. It is said that the vehicle was on government duty and the deceased was traveling in the said vehicle without permission and, therefore, appellant-government is not liable to 4 pay. 05. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.2, the accident took place and therefore appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. It is this order which is challenged in this first appeal. 06. Following points arise for my consideration and I answer them as follows. (1) Whether the appellants and Yes Respondent No.2 are liable to pay compensation to claimant ? (2) Whether the compensation awarded No is excessive or exorbitant ? 07. Heard Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Shri D.G. Chevale, Advocate, holding for Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. 08. So far as liability of appellants and Respondent No. 2 is concerned, the fact of 5 accident is not disputed. It may be noted that on highway, the jeep left the road and dashed a tree, resulting into injuries to Ramdas and his death. So, the happening of the incident itself shows that Respondent No. 2 was negligent. The appellants are employers of Respondent No.2 and as such, they are liable. It has come in evidence of Respondent No. 2 that he allowed deceased Ramdas to travel in the jeep at the instructions of Tahsildar-appellant No.2. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that Ramdas was traveling in the jeep unauthorisedly. 09. So far as quantum is concerned, there is a word of Respondent No.1 that the age of deceased was 45 years. He was agriculturist, so also Sarpanch of the village and doing social work. It is stated by the Tribunal that as a result of death of husband, Respondent No.1 had to hire a servant. So, we have to also consider value of the managerial and supervisory services which the deceased was rendering to his family. He was agriculturist and looking after family land. The 6 Tribunal has considered the loss to the extent of Rs.12,000/= per year which, in my opinion, is quite reasonable amount. The Tribunal, therefore, considered 10 as proper multiplier which for an agriculturist aged 45 years can be said to be proper. The deceased would have looked after his land at least upto the age of 65 years. The amount of Rs.10,000/= was awarded for loss of company and consortium and mental pains. 10. In the circumstances, the amount awarded is just and proper and needs no interference. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. The amount, if deposited in the court and is yet to be withdrawn, be paid to Respondent No.1 after appeal period is over. pnd/ fa207.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) Authenticated copy