1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FA/1045/2010 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,URDHAV MANAR PROJECT & OTHERS. APPELLANT VERSUS DHONDUBAI RAMRAO ABHANGE & OTHERS. RESPONDENT ... Advocate(s) for Petitioner: Geeta Deshpandefor A/1 & 3 S B Pulkundwar For R/1 A V Patil For R/1 To 4 ... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. Dated: June 27, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of the learned respective counsel, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have perused record and proceeding and gone through deposition of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal. 3. Respondent herein/original claimant presented a claim petition being MACP No.152/1994 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded claiming compensation on account of death of 2 one Ramrao Abhange, husband of claimant No.1 and father of other claimants in motor vehicular accident. Deceased was serving as a cleaner and on fateful said day he was on his duty traveling in a jeep being driven by one Babu Pirabeg -original respondent No.1. It was because of rash and negligent driving of the driver, vehicle went astray and dashed against tree. Deceased suffered injuries as a result of the accident and was required to be admitted at hospital for treatment at Latur. Deceased while undergone treatment died in the hospital on 27.10.1993. Deceased was Class IV Government employee aged about 35 years and was getting monthly salary of Rs.1734/-. Initially claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac however, the claim application was amended and claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs. 4. Driver of the vehicle respondent No.1 did not file any written statement however, claim petition was opposed by respondent No.2 The Executive Engineer Mechanical Sub Division Urdhva Manar Project i.e. appellant herein by presenting written statement at Exh.22. It is denied by the respondent that vehicle in 3 question belong to Department or being driven by an employee of the department. Another written statement was presented on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4, wherein it is admitted that vehicle in question was belonging to respondent No.4 however, it is denied that deceased was a cleaner appointed by department and was traveling in the jeep. At the outset respondent denied liability to pay compensation and prayed for rejection of the petition. 5. Trial court, after considering rival contentions and on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the respective parties held that claimants are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of petition. It is the contention of the appellant/original respondent No. 2 that driver was carrying about 35 passengers in the said vehicle for weekly market. It is thus contended that, in any case it cannot be said that death of the deceased has occurred while he was rendering services to the department. It is thus contended that death of deceased was not during the course of the employment and as such department is not liable to pay compensation. It has 4 come in the evidence of the witness examined by the respondent more particularly respondent No.1, driver of the vehicle Baba, that since last 8 years it was a practice being followed to take employees engaged by the department to weekly market for making purchase and to bring them back to work site. Thus it cannot be said that vehicle was being used for private purpose and that death of the deceased was not during the course of employment. Even otherwise, state is vicariously liable to pay compensation to its employees, in the event of occurrence of accident during course of employment. Transportation of labour to weekly market for making purchases by them was a practice being followed since last 8 years, cannot be said to be function outside the scope of the employment, in its wider sense and as such argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that deceased did not meet with accident while rendering services or that death did not occur during the course of the employment is unacceptable. 5. It is to be noted that deceased was aged about 35 years and was getting monthly salary of Rs.1734/-. Trial court applied 5 multiplier of ‘16’ and held the claimants entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased which is arrived at Rs.1200/-. The view adopted by the Tribunal appears to be rational and reasonable. In fact Tribunal did not consider the aspect of rise in salary and loss of monetary benefits, had the deceased continued in employment in future, a factor relevant for assessment of financial loss to dependents. However, as there is no appeal by the claimants, I am not inclined to consider this aspect. It also shall be noted that date of the accident is 19.10.1993 and award has been passed by the Tribunal on 4.3.1996 and amount is deposited in this Court by the appellant only in June, 2010 i.e after 17 years of occurrence of the accident; thereby letting claimants to face financial hardship. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [ R. M. BORDE , J. ] ***** AAA/1045.10