1 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 896 OF 201 0 1. Smt. Bhagirathibai W/o Laxman Saware Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril.., R/o : Chanai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Prabhakar S/o Laxman Saware Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Advocate, R/o : Chanai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Bharat S/o Laxman Saware Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agril.., R/o : Chanai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... APPELLANTS V E R S U S 1. The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 400 K.V. Girwali Project, R/s Construction Division, Bajaj Building, Guruwar Peth, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Shiwaji S/o Bhaurao Yelve Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Service 2 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) as driver-cum-cleaner, R/o : Maharashtra State Electricity Board Office at Girwali Project, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. (Through respondent no. 1) 3. The Assistant Director of Insurance M.S., Bombay Through Respondent no. 1, New Administrative Building, 16 & 17 Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Bombay – 400 032. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.S.P.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.M.Godsay, Advocate for Respondent no. 1. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20/04/2011 JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. 2. The record and proceedings is received. The claimants have also submitted the paper book. As such, with consent of the learned counsel 3 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present appellants are the original claimants. They had filed M.A.C.P. No. 107 of 1988 for compensation on account of the death of Laxman Saware in an accident, which took place on 1/10/1984 between rickshaw, in which the deceased was travelling and the jeep owned by respondent no. 1, driven by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed vide its Judgment and Award dated 7/7/1994 dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the rickshaw puller was negligent and the driver of the jeep was not negligent. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimants have filed the present Appeal. 5. Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for appellants contends that it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the rickshaw puller was negligent and the accident occured because of the fault of the rickshaw puller. The sole cause for the accident was the wrong signal given by the driver of the jeep. The driver of the jeep gave signal that he is going to take right turn and the rickshaw puller was mislead. The rickshaw 4 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) puller took the rickshaw to the left and as the jeep did not turn, the accident took place on the left side of the jeep. As such, the accident can not be attributed due to the fault of the rickshaw puller. 6. The learned counsel further contends that deceased Laxman was 55 years old and was earning Rs. 600/- per month. He was spending only Rs. 100/- per month for his pocket money and contributing the remaining amount for the members of the family. In such circumstances, the claimants were entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only ) on account of loss of income, consortium, love and affection. 7. Per contra, Mr. S.M. Godsay, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. A.S. Bajaj, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submit that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the rickshaw puller was solely negligent. The rickshaw puller was coming from the other end. He was on the slope. The driver of the jeep gave signal to slow down, the rickshaw puller could not control his speed and gave dash to the jeep. The accident is the sole result of the negligent act of the rickshaw puller. The evidence of the driver of the jeep, so also the panchanama, the position of the vehicles substantiate this fact. According to the learned 5 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) counsel, the Tribunal has considered the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record and has rightly held the rickshaw puller to be solely responsible. 8. The learned counsel further contends that there is nothing on record to show the loss of income. The deceased was agriculturist. The agricultural land is still with the family and at the most they would be entitled for supervision charges. But, they would be entitled for the said amount from the owner of the rickshaw and not the respondents. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. I have gone through the record and proceedings and the evidence on record. 10. In fact, the rickshaw puller and the jeep driver both are eye witnesses and are giving divergent explanation. The jeep driver comes with the case that he had given the signal of slowing down, whereas the rickshaw puller states that the jeep driver had given the signal of turning to the right. In view of the wrong signal, the accident took place. The rickshaw puller was taking the rickshaw from the cattle dispensary to the vegetable market. The road from the said dispensary to Shivaji chowk is slopping down. The rickshaw puller was not required to operate paddle on the sloppy road. The 6 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) rickshaw puller has stated that as the jeep driver took out his hand and signaled as if he wants to take right turn, he took his rickshaw towards the right side and the accident occured to the left side of the jeep. The jeep driver in his evidence also admits that he has taken his right hand out. So, the fact that the jeep driver had taken the right hand out is not disputed. The only bone of challenge would be the manner in which the signal was given. It seems that the driver of the jeep had not given any clear signal and that is why the misunderstanding took place. It is also not the case of head on collision but towards the left side of the jeep the accident took place. So, when the jeep driver took out his hand, the rickshaw puller must have believed that the jeep driver is turning right. There is no concrete evidence as to in what manner, the signal was given when the jeep driver took his hand out. From the perusal of the evidence of the rickshaw puller and the jeep driver, it appears to be the case of contributory negligence. There was misunderstanding between both, which resulted into the accident. So, both would be equally liable for the accident. 11. In view of the above, I hold that the jeep driver would be liable to the extent of 50 %. 12. The next question would be about the payment of quantum of 7 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) compensation. It is said that deceased Laxman was 55 years of age and he was earning Rs. 600/- per month and contributing about Rs. 500/- per month to the family. Even taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 600/- per month, amount of Rs. 200/- per month would be required to be deducted towards his personal expenses and his contribution to the family would be at the most Rs. 400/- per month, which would be Rs. 4800/- per year. The multiplier in such case would be of 11. As such, the amount would come to Rs. 52,800/-. The appellants would also be entitled for the amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. As such, the claimants would be entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 72,800/-. Holding the jeep driver to be responsible to the extent of 50 %, the compensation that would be payable by the respondents to the appellants would be Rs. 36,400/-. The claimants/appellant nos. 1 to 3 are the sons, appellant no. 4 is the daughter and appellant no. 5 is the widow of deceased Rambhau. The sons are still carrying on the occupation of agricultural land, which their father was carrying on. As such, out of the amount of Rs. 36,400/-, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- and the appellant no. 1 is entitled to Rs. 26,400/-. The claim is filed in the year 1988. Taking into account the long duration, I award interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence, I pass the following order. 8 FA 896.2010 - ( J ) 13. The Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 36,400/- ( Rupees Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred only ) to the appellants along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till realization. Out of the said amount, Rs. 26,400/- ( Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred only ) with interest shall be paid to the appellant no. 1, the widow and Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only ) with interest to the appellant nos. 2 and 3. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/FA 896.2010