1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 1996 1. The State of Maharashtra, through District Magistrate, (Collector), Beed. 2. Superintendent of Police, Beed. 3. Khedkar, PSI, P.S.Georai, Appellants/ori. District Beed. Respondents. versus 1. Smt.Leelabai w/o Late Shankarrao Ware, age 35 years, occup. house- work 2. Uday s/o Late Shankarrao Ware, age 14 years, occup. student, 3. Ku. Manisha Shankarrao Ware, age 12 years, occup. student, 4. Abhay Shankarrao Ware, age 9 years, occup. student. All resident of Deopur, Respondents/ District Buldhana. claimants. ------------------------------------------------------ Smt.R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. for the appellants. ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : April 15, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This first appeal is preferred by original Respondents being aggrieved by award of compensation of Rs.3.05,600/= for death of 2 Shankarrao Ware, in M.A.C.P. No.20 of 1984 decided by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Aurangabad, on 14.2.1991. 02. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that deceased Shankarrao Ware was husband of Respondent No.1 and father of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who were minor children. He was working as Senior Marketing Officer in Rastriya Chemical and Fertilizers and posted at Beed. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs.2350/=. On 14.11.1983 at about 10.00 a.m. Shankarrao was travelling on Paithan-Aurangabad road in police jeep along with present appellant No.3 (original Respondent No.3). When they were near village Nipani phata, the jeep met with an accident. Shankarrao sustained severe injuries and as a result thereof, he died. 02. Originally, claim for compensation was for Rs.1,50,000/=. However, by application Exhibit 93, the claim was enhanced to Rs. 5,52,400/=. 3 03. The claim was opposed by present Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 (Original Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) by written statement at Exh.21. Present appellant No.3 (original Respondent No.3) did not appear and hence, order to proceed ex-parte against him was passed. 04. It is the case of appellant Nos.1 and 2 that they were not liable for driving of police jeep by appellant No.3. He was not authorized by appellant No.2 to drive the said police jeep which met with accident resulting into death of Shankarrao. Alternatively, it is contended that even if appellant No.3 PSI Shri Khedkar was allowed to drive the said police jeep as he was on duty attending some work in Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court, he was not driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. 05. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Shankarrao died as a result 4 of rash and negligent driving by appellant No.3 of jeep owned by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. So far as that part is concerned, appellant No.3 is not examined by the appellants. 06. On behalf of the present respondents- claimants, PW-2 Punjaram Bhalekar is examined at Exhibit 63. He has stated that on 14.11.1983, he was going to his land at village Nipani by Aurangabad-Beed public road and from West to East side. At that time, jeep came in high speed and turned topsy-turvy 2-3 times. One PSI Shri Nirmal of Chikhalthana Police Station was in the jeep. According to the witness, another inmate was seriously injured and, therefore, he and PSI Nirmal lifted the victim and kept him in a truck which arrived at the spot. Witness Punjaram was not knowing name of the injured. The truck, in which injured was kept proceeded to Aurangabad. It is said that he was not witness to the incident and previously his evidence was not recorded in respect of the incident. However, that is no good reason to disbelieve the witness. Ordinarily, jeep 5 would not roll 2-3 times unless it is driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and driver has lost control over the vehicle. Therefore, the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur applies to the present case. 07. So far as appellant No.3-PSI Khedkar carrying Shankarrao in his jeep is concerned, in the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to say how and for what purpose Shankarrao was allowed to travel in the said jeep. In any case, as owners of the jeep, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 cannot disclaim vicarious liability of death of Shankarrao which resulted from rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 08. So far as quantum is concerned, at Exhibit 68, there is school leaving certificate of deceased Shankarrao which shows date of birth of Shankarrao as 14.7.1941. So, on the date of the incident, Shankarrao was about 42 years of age. Moreover, PW-1 Ambadas Govindrao Ware, the brother of deceased Shankarrao, has produced at Exhibit 6 4/2 the pay slip of deceased Shankarrao. It shows monthly salary of deceased Shankarrao to be Rs. 2350/= per month which is also stated in the claim petition. Even if we consider deduction of Rs. 96/= towards income tax and Rs.20/- towards professional tax, monthly income of deceased was Rs.2200/=. Therefore, even if we consider Rs. 1500/= as monthly dependency, yearly dependency would come to Rs.18000/=. If 14 is considered as proper multiplier, proper compensation would come to Rs.2,62,000/=. To this we have to add amount for compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection as Respondent No.1 is the widow and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased. Amount of Rs.5000/= could be awarded as funeral expenses. So, total amount comes to Rs.2,87,000/=. In such circumstances the amount of Rs.3,05,600/= as awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.It is true that the learned Member of the Tribunal has not considered the multiplier while calculating compensation. But, it adopted another method which is no more in 7 vogue. 09. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion this is not a case wherein any interference in the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is called for as it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive or exorbitant. 10. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. pnd/fa434.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)