1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.609 OF 1996 1 The Union of India, through Secretary, Defence Department, New Delhi 2 The Commander,706, Transport Company,Pune 3 Vasantkumar Mariprakash Khalse ...Appellants vs. 1 Aparna Vasudeo Pohare 2 Anirudha Vasudeo Pohare ...Respondents Ms J.N.Pandhi for Union of India Mr.Suresh Sabrad for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 2, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the opponents in a claim petition filed by the respondents under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939. The respondents are the son and daughter respectively of deceased Jayashri. The deceased was employed as a Clerk in a school. According to the case of the respondents, on 4 th November 1982, the deceased Jayashtri was coming back from her office through a gate of S.K.F. company. She cross the Chinchwad Road to the extent of ¾ of its width. At that time, a truck driven by the 1 st appellant which was owned by the 2 nd appellant came in a fast speed and gave a dash to the said Jayashri. She succumbed to injuries. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed by the respondents. 2 The claim was contested by the appellants. The 1 st appellant filed written statement which was adopted by 2 the 2 nd and 3 rd appellants. It was contended that the deceased Jayashri suddenly came out from the gate of S.K.F. factory without taking any precaution while entering the main road. It is contended that the first appellant sounded horn and but the deceased neglected the same and tried to cross road from front side of the truck. It is submitted that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased. The trial Court accepted the case of the respondent of gross negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3 The learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to evidence of the first appellants. She submitted that it is the deceased who suddenly came on the main road without taking any precaution. She submitted that no eye witness was examined to prove the negligence on the part of the first appellant. It is submitted that the negligence was of the deceased and not of the first appellant. She submitted that the compensation awarded is on the higher side in as much as there is no evidence on record to prove the age of the deceased at the time of the accident. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the record. The first appellant stepped into the witness box. He stated that at the relevant time he was driving the truck. He stated that he was driving the truck at the speed of 15 to 20 kilometer per hour. When he came near S.K.F. factory and came close to its main gate, he could not see as to who was coming from the main gate. He stated that when the deceased came from the gate she was plying her bicycle. On seeing her he sounded horn and applied brakes. According to him, the deceased dashed on cleaner s side of his truck s bumper 3 and fell down. In the cross examination, he admitted that the width of the road was 60 feet and it was a straight road. He admitted that for the first time he saw the deceased when she was 10 to 15 feet away. He denied that his truck was in high speed at the relevant time. 5 It is true that the respondents have not examined any independent witness. However, the evidence of the appellant no.1 shows that the width of the road at the spot of accident was 60 feet. He admitted that he had seen the deceased when she was 10 to 15 feet away. It is the case of the first appellant that at the relevant time the speed of the truck was 15 to 20 kilometer per hour. At such a slow speed, the truck could have been easily stopped when the deceased was seen at the distance of 15 feet. That is why the learned Member of the tribunal inferred that the first appellant must be driving his vehicle in a high speed. If the speed of the truck was 15 to 20 kilometer per hour, as stated earlier, the accident could have been avoided. The case of the appellants that the truck was being driven in a slow speed of 15 to 20 kilometer per hour was disbelieved by the tribunal. It is true that the deceased entered from the compound of S.K.F. company on the main road. The deceased ought to have taken precaution while entering the main road. Therefore, at highest the contribution of the deceased can be taken as 25%. 6 As far as quantum is concerned, certificates at Exh. 45 and 47 have been proved by the respondents. The certificate at Exh.45 shows that the deceased was a permanent employee in a recognized school and her total monthly emoluments were Rs.1142.65. The certificate at Exh.47 shows that if the deceased would have retired in 4 the year 2008 and at that time she would have drawn net salary of Rs.2877/-. The age of retirement as disclosed in the certificate is 31 st August 2008. The third witness examined by the claimants is one Janakram Kshirsagar, a clerk employed with Fattechand Jain Vidyalaya where the deceased was employed. He stated that the age of the retirement of the clerk was 60 years. Considering the date of retirement of the deceased it can be said that she was born in 1948 and therefore, at the time of accident her age was 37 years. The deceased was in permanent employment at the time of accident and her gross salary was Rs.1142.65. The net salary was around Rs.800/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], since the deceased was in permanent employment, 50% of the salary will have to be added to the income for the purpose of calculating multiplicand. Therefore, dependency at the rate of Rs.800/- per month taken by the tribunal is reasonable. In view of paragraph 42 of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 15 will have to be applied taking the age of the deceased as 37 years. The amount of dependency by applying multiplier of 15 will be Rs.1,44,000/- and after adding usual amount the compensation come to Rs. 1,49,000/-. Therefore, even if the reduction of 25% amount is made on account of negligence on the part of deceased, the compensation amount exceeds the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is the amount granted by the tribunal. 6 Hence, no case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE