Case: Asha &amp; Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Another

96 there was an accident between two vehicles in which a person by name Arun Raikar was killed. He was working with the International Airport Authority of India. The appellants filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 10,67,076. The Claims Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence and, therefore, directed that the amount be paid in equal proportion by the owners and insurer of both the vehicles3. The respondent (herein) along with the owner of the tempo (one of the vehicles) filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reduced the amount of compensation payable to Rs 8,79,176. The High Court has done this on the basis of a salary certificate which reads as follows:This is to certify that Mr. A.M. Raikar, working as AG III in this organisation has been paid the following pay and allowances for the month of May 1995: Net payable Rs 6642.00 (Rupees six thousand six hundred andThis salary certificate is for accident compensation court case

Reasoning: This question was not agitated before the High Court at all. It is an admitted position that the award was against both the owners and the Insurance Company. To that extent the owners were also aggrieved. They definitely had a right to maintain an appeal. So long as the owner was a party to the appeal the mere fact that the name of the Insurance Company was not deleted (as no such objection was taken before the High Court) is no ground for setting aside the impugned order. We see no substance in this submission. Merely because the other owner does not file an appeal does not mean that a party aggrieved cannot maintain his own appealWe are unable to accept this submission also. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependants would only be receiving the net amount less 1/3rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was therefore right in so holding.