1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.118 of 1996 Ramchandra s/o Pandurang Ratghod age 30 years,occupation Owner of tractor,resident of Bakshi Hpperga (Lamantanda) District Sholapur. .. Appellant/ ori.Resp.No. 2. versus 01. Rahmatbi w/o Makbul Shaikh age 55 years, occupation household, r/of Andoor, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad 2. Kondabai w/o Umar Ali Shaikh age 23 years, occup. and r/o as above. 3. Shabana d/o Umar Ali Shaikh age 3 years, minor, u/g of her real mother Kondabai Umal (Umar) Ali Shaikh. 2 4. Mahboob s/o Umarali Shaikh age 1 years, minor u/g as above. 5. Nalsaheb s/o Makbul Shaikh, age 20 years, occup. student, r/of as above. 6. Ibrahim s/o Ambulal Attar, age 30 years, occup.driver, r/of Yoti, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 07. The New India Assurance Co. .. Respondents Ltd. Branch at Sholapur. (No.1 to 5 original claimants. ======= Smt. S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 served and absent. Appeal abated against Respondent No. 6 vide order dated 16.11.1999. Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : July 8, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal preferred by original Respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims 3 Tribunal, Osmanabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.32 of 1991 decided on 22.11.1995. 2. Some of the facts as are relevant for decision of the first appeal may be stated as below. Deceased Umer Ali Shaikh was a labourer. Claimant No. 1 is his mother, claimant No. 2 is his widow, claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are his minor children and claimant No. 5 is his brother. On 5.12.1990, Respondent No. 6 was driving tractor- trolley bearing No.MVP 9022, which was transporting molasses from Tuljabhavani Sugar Factory, Naldurg, to the land of Arun s/o Tanaji Gaikwad. Umar Ali and others who were engaged as labourers were sitting on the vehicle. The tractor - trolley, while carrying molasses to the land of Arun, was on a slope and it fell on its right side at about 8.30 a.m. on 5.12.1990 on Naldurg-Solapur road. Umar Ali came under the tractor-trolly and suffered injuries and died in the Government Hospital at Naldurg where he was taken. 3. It is the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that Umar Ali was aged 25 years of age and was getting Rs.30 per day as daily wages. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were dependent on him and so they claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/=. 4 4. Present appellant is the owner of tractor - trolly. Respondent No. 6 was the driver. The appeal abated against him since he died pending the first appeal. Respondent No.7 is the insurance company. 5. Learned Member of M.A.C.T., after considering evidence led before him, held that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy and dismissed the petition against original Respondent No.3-insurance company, which is Respondent No. 7 in present appeal. Award of Rs. 90,000/= was passed against the appellant-owner and Respondent No.6, which is challenged in the present appeal. 6. Heard Smt. Chincholkar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt.Ansari, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Advocate Smt. Chincholkar mainly argued that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and high and, therefore, needs reconsideration and hence, the question raised in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or it is excessive. 7. In order to prove the age and income of the deceased Umar Ali, Respondent No. 1 Rehamatbi is examined at Exh.56. She stated that Umar Ali was earning Rs.30.00 per day. He was aged 25 5 years. Her statement is corroborated by co- workers of Umar Ali, namely, Tanaji and Subhash examined at Exhibits 56 and 57 respectively. They deposed that they were also working with Umar Ali as labourers on the tractor-trolly and each was getting Rs.30/= per day as daily wages. Besides the suggestion that they were not getting Rs.30/= per day, there was nothing on record to show what were the wages earned by them. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 9 of its judgment that as per post mortem report at Exh.78, age of the deceased was 28 years and, therefore, he could be considered of the age ranging between 28 to 30 years. Learned Tribunal also observed that at least Rs.25/= could be considered as daily wages. It does not appear from the record that any evidence was led on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the insurance company, witness Nandakukar Kumthekar is examined at Exh.72. But, he did not say anything about the wages earned by the deceased and his age. He mainly deposed about the terms and conditions of the policy and breach thereof. 8. It is submitted by Advocate Smt. Chincholkar that at the most Rs.20/= can be considered as daily wages in December 1990 when the accident had occurred. However, there is no basis for such presumption. It is not suggested to any witness that the wages were Rs.20/= per day 6 and not Rs.30/=. Simply, suggestion was given that the wages were not Rs.30/= per day. Moreover, witnesses, who spoke about the per day wages, were working with deceased Umar Ali and, therefore, they cannot be said to be not having knowledge about the wages. Rehmatbi stated that she was doing labour work and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was not knowing about the wages prevailing at the relevant time. 9. The trial court observed that at the rate of Rs.25/= per day, monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.625/= and so, dependency would come to Rs.450/= per month and that if 15 is considered as multiplier, compensation would come to Rs. 81,000/=. To this, the trial court has added Rs. 9,000/= towards love and affection and loss of society.. If we consider the case of General Manager, Kerala State RTC vs. Sasamma Thomas (1994)2 SCC 176, which is a leading case, it is clear that Rs.15,000/= was considered to be standard amount for loss of consortium and love and affection and Rs.3,000/= were awarded as funeral charges during those days. 10. After going through the judgment of the tribunal, I am of the opinion that it is not a case requiring any interference in the quantum of compensation awarded. In this view of the matter, first appeal is dismissed. Appellant to pay 7 proportionate costs to the Respondents. 11. At this stage, Advocate Smt. Ansari for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, states that the amount deposited in this court may be transferred to the trial court for disbursement. Registry to take necessary steps for such transfer of amount deposited with interest to the Tribunal that decided the case. pnd/ fa118.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)