1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.247 OF 1994 1. Chandrakala w/o Rangnath Nimbone, aged 26 years, occup. Household, now in service R/o Andhaner Tq. Kannad, Dist: Aurangabad. 2. Sangeeta D/o Rangnath Nibone, aged 9 years,minor. 3. Yogesh S/o Rangnath Nibone, aged 6 years,minor. 4. Jyoti D/o Rangnath Nimbone, aged 4 years,occup. minor. 5. Baby D/o Rangnath Nimbone, aged 9 months, minor. All minors under guardianship of their mother Chandrakala W/o Rangnath Nimbone. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. Sheku s/o Vithal Gayake Since deceased through his L.Rs. a. Popat S/o Sheku Gayake, Age major, occup. agril. b. Gopinath S/o Sheku Gayake, age Major Occup. Agril., 2 c. Machindra S/o Sheku Gayake, age Major, occup. agril. d. Kailash S/o Sheku Gayake, Age Major,Occup. agril. e. Kasuabai W/o Sheku Gayake, age Major occup. agril. All r/o village Khamgaon post Vita Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. f. Manabai W/o Pitambar, Age Major, Occup.Agril, R/o Kanadgaon, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. g. Janabai W/o Rustum, age Major,Occup.Agril, R/o Nipani, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. h. Pushpabai W/o Narayan, aged Major,Occup. agril, R/o Chapaner,Tq.Kannad, District Aurangabad. i. Baby W/o Annasaheb Aged : Major, Occup.Agril, R/o Wadner (Baherav) Tq.Chandwad, Dist. Nashik. j. Latabai W/o Sahebrao, aged Major,Occup.Agril., r/o Yerpure, Tq.Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. (Dismissed) k. Chhaya W/o Nandkumar, Aged Major, Occup.Agril, R/o Shirdi, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. (Dismissed) 3 2. Jayaram S/o Ramrao Gayake, Aged 28 years, Occup.Agril, R/o Khamgaon, Post. Vita, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. (Abated) 3. Anna S/o Pitamber Nalawade, Aged 28 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Khamgaon, Post. Vita, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Adalat road, Aurangabad, Through its Manager. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. M.D. Joshi, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent No.3 (Absent). ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 11-11-1987 passed by the Motor Accident 4 Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 9 of 1985. A few facts of the matter are as under : 3. Motor Accident Claims Petition No.9 of 1985 was filed by the appellants - original claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad claiming the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The deceased Rangnath Madhavrao Nimbone was the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 and husband of appellant No.1. The deceased was appointed as Talathi on 17-12-1984 in Aurangabad District and at the time of his death, he was serving at Khultabad. The deceased at the time of death was drawing salary of Rs.950/- per month. The deceased was having motor cycle and was occasionally visiting Andhaner, as his family was staying there. On 02-03-1984 the deceased was coming to village Andhaner after finishing his work in the evening on motor cycle bearing Registration No. MXU-1740. At about 8-00 p.m. 5 while the deceased was about to reach Aurangabad Kannad road, the accident took place. The Tractor bearing Registration No. MTN-5066 dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the dash of the tractor, the deceased was thrown away and sustained vital injuries and multiple fractures and succumbed to these injuries. Thereafter, the appellants-original claimants filed Claim Petition on 01-09-1984 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent - Insurance Company filed their Written Statement on 30-09-1986 and original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their Written Statement on 19-11-1985 opposing the appellants' claim for compensation. The appellant No.1 herself entered into witness box. The appellants also examined Bhimrao Ramrao Gaikwad at Exhibit-63, Shamrao Shahaji Shirse at Exhibit-64 and Baburao Narayanrao Dhotre at Exhibit-75 in support of her case. The original respondent No.1 Gopinath Shaku Gaike entered into witness box at Exhibit-79 and 6 driver Jayram Ramrao Gayke entered into witness box at Exhibit-80. 5. The appellants in their claim petition claimed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of earning of the deceased, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of life, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 40,000/- towards shock to the appellants. In this way, the appellants claimed total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest. 6. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court passed judgment and award dated 11-11-1987 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- considering the contribution of the deceased to his family of Rs.500/- per month and multiplier of 12. At the time of death, the deceased was 32 years old and was serving as a Talathi on salary of Rs.950/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the 7 original claimants preferred present appeal mainly for enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was earning salary to the tune of Rs.950/- per month and therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.800/- per month. He further submits that the deceased was serving in Government Department and was of about 32 years old and considering the long service, he would have earned more since the deceased was getting salary of Rs.950/- per month at the time of the accident. He further submits that the compensation should have been awarded considering the span of life of the deceased who would have survived up to the age of 80. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the longevity of the deceased at the time of fixing multiplier at 12. 8 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the matter on record and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, rightly held that the appellants were entitled to total compensation of Rs.80,000/-. He submits that the appellants failed to point out any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that for want of documentary evidence on record, the appellants are not entitled to enhanced compensation and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. 10. As per submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original claimants, the issue involved in the First Appeal is,"Whether the appellants are entitled to the additional compensation over and above awarded by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 9/1985." 9 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by both the Counsel and also perused the record and proceedings. I have gone through the evidence of P.W. Nos.1,2,3 and 4 and also evidence of D.W.Nos. 1 and 2. P.W.1 Chandrakalabai w/o Rangnath though stated in her evidence that the deceased used to get yearly income of Rs.4000/- to 5000/- from his field property at Andhaner which was about 4 to 5 Acres, failed to produce any documentary evidence about the same. Not only that she admitted in her cross examination that the said property appears in the revenue record in the name of her father in law. Nowhere, she stated in her evidence about the cultivation of agricultural land by the deceased Rangnath. She further admitted in her cross examination that she earned Rs.3000/-from L.I.C. after demise of her husband and Rs.25,000/- from Government towards G.P.F. and other accounts due to her deceased husband. She further stated that she got employment on compassionate ground in the Government Department. Apart from all these things, the Tribunal rightly considered in Para-16 10 that when the deceased was getting salary of Rs.950/- per month, the contribution to the family may not be more than Rs.500/- per month. The Tribunal also rightly considered the multiplier of 12 for calculating the compensation payable to the appellants. The Tribunal also awarded sum of Rs.8000/- to the appellants on the ground of mental agony, shock and sufferings. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original claimants have not pointed out any error in the judgment and award of the Tribunal for considering the contribution of Rs.500/- per month and multiplier of 12. 12. Considering the value of Rs.80,000/- in 1987 when the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and considering the evidence on record, I do not find any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The reasons given by the Tribunal are consistent with the facts and circumstances of the present case and they do not call for any interference in this appeal. 11 13. The First Appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] sut/NOV10/fa247.94