(1)
FIRST APPEAL NO.109 OF 1995
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO.6197 OF 1996
Date of decision: 8TH MAY, 2009
For approval and signature.
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment? }
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not } Yes/No
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see
the fair copy of the Judgment?
}
}
No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial }
question of law as to the interpretation } No
of the Constitution of India, 1950 or }
any Order made thereunder? }
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } No
Civil Judges? }
6. Whether the case involves an important }
question of law and whether a copy of } No
the Judgment should be sent to Mumbai, }
Nagpur and Panaji offices? }
[A.S. Bhagwat)
Personal Assistant to
the Honourable Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.109 OF 1995
1) The Asstt. Engineer, Cl. II,
Kukadi Left Canal, Sub-Divn. No.17,
Paragaon, Sudrik, Tq-Shrigonda,
Dist-Ahmednagar.
2) The Government of Maharashtra,
Irrigation Dept., Secretariate,
Bombay.
.... APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
1) Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Kenge,
Age-50 years, Occu:Nil,
2) Smt. Renuka Dattatraya Kenge,
Age-46 years, Occu:Household,
Both R/o- Renuka Niwas, Bagde Mala,
Balikashram Road, Ahmednagar.
3) Vasant Sitaram Pawar,
Age-30 years, Occu:Driver,
R/o-Ahmedabad, Tq-Shirur,
Dist-Pune,
At present R/o- Pargaon Sudrik,
Kukadi Project Colony,
Tq-Shrigonda, Dist-Ahmednagar.
4) Mr. Joseph M. D'Souza,
386, Rasta Peth,
Pune-411 011.
5) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered and Head Office at
New India Assurance Building,
87, M.G. Road, Fort, Bombay.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
2
.... RESPONDENTS.
...
Mr.M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for the Appellant.
Mr.P.S. Shendurnikar Advocate holding for Mr.
R.T. Sharma Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
None present for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
Appeal is dismissed against Respondent No.4 as
per Registrar's Order dated 8/4/2008.
...
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO.6197 OF 1996
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.109 OF 1995
1) The Asstt. Engineer, Cl. II,
Kukadi Left Canal, Sub-Divn. No.17,
Paragaon Sudrik, Tq-Shrigonda,
Dist-Ahmednagar.
2) The Government of Maharashtra,
Irrigation Dept., Secretariate,
Bombay.
.... APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
1) Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Kenge,
Age-50 years, Occu:Nil,
2) Smt. Renuka Dattatraya Kenge,
Age-46 years, Occu:Household,
Both R/o- Renuka Niwas, Bagde Mala,
Balikashram Road, Ahmednagar.
3) Vasant Sitaram Pawar,
Age-30 years, Occu:Driver,
R/o-Ahmedabad, Tq-Shirur,
Dist-Pune,
At present R/o- Pargaon Sudrik,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
3
Kukadi Project Colony,
Tq-Shrigonda, Dist-Ahmednagar.
4) Mr. Joseph M. D'Souza,
386, Rasta Peth,
Pune-411 011.
5) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered and Head Office at
New India Assurance Building,
87, M.G. Road, Fort, Bombay.
.... RESPONDENTS.
...
Mr.P.S. Shendurnikar Advocate holding for Mr.
R.T. Sharma Advocate for Cross Objection
Petitioners, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.M.L. Dharashive for Government of Maharashtra.
...
CORAM: K.K. TATED, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 29TH APRIL, 2009.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8TH MAY, 2009.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Dharashive, learned A.G.P. for
the Appellant and Mr. Shendurnikar, learned
counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Present First Appeal filed by original
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the Judgment and
award dated 27th January, 1994 passed by Member,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
4
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in
Motor Accident Claim Application No.240 of 1990.
The original claimants also preferred Cross
Objection Stamp No.6197 of 1996 for enhancement of
compensation.
3. In the present case the accident took place
on 5th January, 1989 in which one Rajendra Kenge
died. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed Motor Accident
Claim Application No.240 of 1990 claiming
compensation
Section 110-A
to
ig the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-
of the Motor Vehicles Act,
under
1939.
The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,900/- to
the original claimants with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of Application i.e.
10th July, 1989 till realisation of the amount.
4. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the trial
Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the
original claimants are entitled compensation in
respect of death of Rajendra Kenge to the tune of
Rs.1,03,900/- along with interest. Learned A.G.P.
submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to
the conclusion that for calculating the
compensation, the multiplier should be 15 years.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
5
He further submitted that the trial Court has not
considered the evidence on record and awarded
excess compensation to the claimants.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/
original claimants submitted that the trial Court
ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to
the claimants. Learned counsel for Respondents/
original claimants further submitted that the
trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that
the deceased used to contribute only 1/3 income of
his net salary for house expenses. He further
submitted that the trial Court ought to have held
that at the time of calculating the compensation,
the multiplier should be 17 years. He further
submitted that the trial Court has not considered
the future prospects of the deceased at the time
of calculating the compensation. On the basis of
these submissions, learned counsel for Respondents
submitted that the Cross Objection preferred by
them should be allowed in toto.
6. On the basis of the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, the points arises for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
6
consideration, are as under:
i) Whether the trial Court should have
taken into consideration 2/3 income of the
deceased as contribution towards the
family?
ii) Whether the trial Court should have
adopted 17 years multiplier at the time of
calculating the compensation?
iii) Whether the trial Court ought to
have taken into consideration future
prospects of the deceased at the time of
calculating the compensation?
iv) Whether the compensation awarded by
the trial Court is according to law?
7. With the assistance of learned counsel for
both the parties, I have gone through the Record
and Proceedings of the present case. The accident
took place on 5th January, 1989 in which Rajendra
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
7
Kenge expired. It is the case of the Respondents/
original claimants that the deceased was Civil
Engineer and was working with Irrigation
Department. He was earning a sum of Rs.1856/- per
month. On the date of accident, his age was 27
years. He used to contribute more than Rs.1200/-
per month towards house expenses. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the
Respondents, relied on salary certificate issued
by Irrigation Department, Pune dated 16th
February,
that the
1989
deceased
at Exhibit 36.
was getting
Exhibit 36
net salary
shows
of
Rs.1694/-. Even the PW1 Dattatraya Ganpat Kenge,
father of deceased in his evidence stated that his
son was drawing a salary of Rs.1856/- per month.
He further stated in his evidence that out of his
salary, the deceased used to pay Rs.900/- to
Rs.1000/- to them for their expenses. Considering
these facts, the trial Court held that the
deceased used to contribute 1/3 of his salary i.e.
Rs.600/- to his family. Learned counsel for the
Respondents vehemently argued that the trial Court
erred in coming to the conclusion that the
deceased used to contribute only 1/3 of his gross
salary i.e. Rs.600/- per month to his family. He
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
8
submitted that in several cases the Apex Court as
well as High Court held that usually 2/3 amount to
be considered for fixing the compensation. In
support of his contention learned counsel for
Respondents relied on the Judgment reported in
1995 (4) B.C.R. Page 421, Smt. Mandabai wd/o.
Milind Sontakke and another vs. P. Rajendra
Prasad and another. He specifically relied on
para 23 of the Judgment, which reads as under:
“23.
It may be seen that the loss of
dependency is measured by the loss of the
amount of pecuniary benefit that thedependants could reasonably expect to have
received from the deceased in future. In
the ordinary case of the death of a wage
earner that figure is arrived at by
deducting from the wages the estimated
amount of his own personal and livingexpenses. It is necessary to see that in
the absence of any evidence in that regardthe amount of personal and living expenses
of the deceased is conventionally
determined by apportioning equal shares
between him and his dependents. Thus where
there are three family members, 1/3rd ofhis wages is estimated as his own personal
and living expenses. However, in the
instant case the learned Claims Tribunal
has first excluded the honorarium of Rs.300
per month which the deceased Milind was
getting from his Union, from his income on
the ground that he was spending his timeand energy in the Union work. It has
thereafter excluded his share in his salary
by taking his family as consisting of 2-1/2
units. In our view, the above approach of
the learned Claims Tribunal is clearly
erroneous. In considering the question of::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
9loss of benefit to the family of the
dependents what has to be excluded is the
personal and living expenses of the
deceased. As such there is no reason toexclude the amount of Rs.300 per month
which the deceased Milind was getting as
honorarium from his Union. If he wasspending his time and energy in the Union
work, what needed to be excluded is the
expenditure which he incurred i.e. his
personal and living expenses for doing the
union work. In fact the learned claimsTribunal ought to have taken the total
income of the deceased Milind from salary
and the said honorarium at Rs.1000 and then
deducted from the said income the personal
and living expenses of deceased Milind in
discharging his own duties in the factoryas well as in doing the union work and
calculated rest of the income as loss ofbenefit to his family.”
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents further
relied on the Judgment reported in 2006 (4) Mh.
L.J. Page 161, Kantabai w/o Sureshchandra Doshi
and others vs. Ahmed Khan Chand Khan (deceased)
by his LRs. Muktyarbi w/o Ahmed Khan and
others.68 In this case learned Single Judge of
this Court held that 1/3 amount to be deducted
towards personal expenses of deceased. Para 7 of
the Judgment is relevant here, which reads as
under:
“7. In MACP No.221 of 1991, it seems
that deceased Sureshchand Doshi is survived
by two daughters and two sons and applicant
no.1 widow as well. The learned tribunal::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
10has justifiably referred to the dependency
of the parents in appeal no. 312 of 2000.
The income of the deceased Sureshchandra
Doshi, as an advocate and from the
agriculture land, is considered to be
Rs.36000 per annum. It comes to Rs.3000
per month. In the absence of any proof of
his income, the learned tribunal has
justifiably arrived at conclusion with
little guess work. The learned Tribunal
however, while working out the amount of
compensation, on account of death of
Sureshchandra Doshi, applied the multiplier
of 12. It is pertinent to note that there
is no age proof placed on record by the
Appellants, except the oral evidence.
However, the learned Judge seems to have
chosen multiplier as 12 without any
explanation. While applying the
multiplier, the tribunal/ Court has to
arrive at a conclusion, regarding the age
of deceased person, on the basis
evidence and/ or the facts circumstances,
of
and other material on record. On the basis
of material on record, in the present case,
in my opinion, it is difficult to record
any finding regarding the specific age of
deceased Sureshchandra Doshi. However, it
can be considered that deceased
Sureschandra Doshi must be above 40 years
of age and below 45 years, on the date of
the accident. To choose the multiplier,
reference, can be made to IInd Scheddule of
Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, by way of guideline. In that case,
help of IInd Schedule referred to under
Section 163 A, can be taken for working out
compensation as well. The learned counsel
Mr. Patni has relied on Judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of United
Insurance Company Ltd. and others vs.
Patricia Jean Mahajan and others (2002) 6
S.C.C. 281. The Apex Court in the matter
of United India Insurance (supra) held that
–
“12. It thus makes it clear that
it is for the tribunal to arrive at
an amount of compensation, which it::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
11may consider to the just in the
facts and circumstances of the
case. This Court however, has been
of the view that structured formulaas provided under the second
Schedule would be a safe guide to
calculate the amount of justcompensation. Deviation though
permissible, may only be resorted
to for some special reasons to do
so. So far as structured formula
is concerned, it provides for amaximum multiplier of 18. The
application of the multiplier
depends upon the age of the
deceased etc. Again we find that
the structured formula relates to a
victim whose income is uptoRs.40,000 per annum. It may be
clarified that in the accepted andprevalent method, would
applicable and has been applied.
The question of setting
be
apart
1/3rrd of the income on account of
expenditure on self by the deceased
is also not in dispute i.e. to say
that the amount of multiplicand
shall be 2/3rds of the annual
income of the deceased. The annual
income of the deceased, as found bythe learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench, namely, 3,39,445dollars is also not in dispute, nor
the amount of dependency , 2,26,297
U.S. dollars. The only dispute is
about application of 13 as
multiplier as applied by a DivisionBench of the High Court following
the second Schedule to the Act.”
In this view of the matter, in my view,
multiplier of 15 for the age group in
between 40 to 45, as mentioned in Schedule
II of Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles
Act can safely be accepted. Thus, the
amount of compensation with multiplier of
15 would be as follows, after deducting 1/3
for personal expenses:-
2400- X 15 = 3,60,000/-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
12
The learned tribunal has awarded an amount
of Rs.2,88,000/- towards loss of
dependency, thus the claimants are entitledfor enhancement of amount of Rs.72,000/-
for non pecuniary head of the compensation.
The learned tribunal, has awarded an amountof Rs.12,000/- towards loss of consortium
and life and affection, justifiably. In
other words, appellants are entitled to
seek enhancement of compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,72,000/- in it’s totality inthis appeal, filed for enhancement in the
amount of compensation.”
9. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied
on the Judgment reported in AIR 2008 S.C. Page
1221,
A.P.S.R.T.C. and another vs. M. Ramadevi
and others. In this case the Apex Court held that
after deducting 1/3 amount, remaining amount to be
considered for determining the compensation. Head
Note B of the Judgment reads as under:
“B. Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988)
S.168- Accident – Claim for compensation –
deceased, bus driver, was 40 years of age –
monthly income taken at Rs.3000/-, after
deducting 1/3 therefrom, annual
contribution is fixed at Rs.24000/- –
multiplier of 10 adopted – amount of
Rs.20,000/- fixed for pecuniary damages and
consortium – claimants thus, would be
entitled to Rs.2,60,000/- – interest rateof 9% fixed by High Court, not interfered
with.”
10. Thus, it is to be noted that in all these
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
13
Authorities, the Apex Court as well as High Court
held that, at the time of calculating
compensation, only 1/3 amount to be deducted for
net contribution of the deceased towards his
family. Considering the Authorities referred
above, I hold that trial Court erred in coming to
the conclusion that the deceased used to
contribute only 1/3 of his salary to his family.
It is admitted position that as per salary
certificate Exhibit 36, deceased used to get
the G.P.F.
Rs.1856/- per month gross salary.
and other deductions, he used to
After deducting
get
net amount of Rs.1694/-. Therefore, 2/3 of
Rs.1694/- comes to Rs.1130/-. The trial Court
ought to have considered the sum of Rs.1130/- as
contribution of the deceased for the maintenance
of his family. Considering the above mentioned
Authorities, I hold that for calculating the
compensation payable to the Respondents/ original
claimants, a sum of Rs.1130/- to be taken as
contribution of the deceased towards his family.
Accordingly the Point No.1 is decided.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents/ original claimants submitted that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
14
trial Court ought to have held that for
calculating compensation, multiplier should be 17
years in the present case. He submitted that on
the date of accident, the deceased was 27 years
old. Considering the age of the deceased and age
of his family members, the trial Court should have
held that proper multiplier in the present case is
17 years. He further submitted that the trial
Court on the basis of Judgment of the Apex Court
in the matter of General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport
Corporation vs.
Thomas decided on 6th January, 1993, wherein it is
Smt. Susamma
held that the maximum multiplier to be adopted is
of 16 years. On the basis of the said decision of
the Apex Court, the trial Court held that proper
multiplier would be 15 years in the present case.
Learned counsel for Respondents relied on the Apex
Court Judgment reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court
Cases, 362, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and others vs. Trilok Chandra and others. In
this case the Apex Court held that the multiplier
varies from 5 to 18 depending upon the age group
to which the victim belongs. Para 17 of the
Judgment reads as under:
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
15
“17. The situation has now undergone a
change with the enactment of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by AmendmentAct 54 of 1994. The most important change
introduced by the Amendment insofar as it
relates to determination of compensation isthe insertion of Sections 163 A and 163
in Chapter XI entitled “Insurance of Motor
Vehicles against Third Party Risks”.
Section 165 A begins with a non obstanted
clause and provides for payment ofcompensation, as indicated in the second
Schedule, to the legal representatives of
the deceased, as the case may be. Now if
we turn to the second Schedule, we find a
table fixing the mode of calculation of
compensation for third party accidentinjury claims arising out of fatal
accident. The first column gives the agegroup of the victims of the accident. The
second column indicates the multiplier and
the subsequent horizontal figures indicates
the quantum of compensation in thousandpayable to the heirs of the deceased
victim. According to the table the
multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on
the age group to which the victim belonged.
Thus, under this Schedule, the maximum
multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 aswas held in Susamma Thomas case.”
12. On the basis of this Authority, the learned
counsel for the Respondents submitted that the
trial Court ought to have held the multiplier of
17 years for calculating the compensation payable
to the Respondents/ original claimants.
13. On the other hand, learned A.G.P.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
16
appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted
that the trial Court correctly held that in the
present case the multiplier should be 15 years
only. Learned counsel pointed out that Authority
cited by the learned counsel for Respondents
reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 179,
Sarla Dixit (Smt) and another vs. Balwant Yadav
and others, is useful in the present case.
Learned A.G.P. submitted that the Apex Court in
the matter of Sarla Dixit (supra) held that for 27
years deceased, 15 is proper multiplier.
Court in this Authority held that:
The Apex
“. As the age of the deceased was 27
years and a few months at the time of his
death, the proper multiplier in the lightof the aforesaid decision of this Court in
the case of G.M. Kerala vs. S.R.T.C.
would be 15.”
14. In view of these observations of the Apex
Court, learned A.G.P. submitted that the trial
Court rightly held that in the present case,
multiplier should be 15 years. Considering the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
Respondents as well as learned A.G.P. and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
17
considering the Apex Court Authority in the matter
of Sarla Dixit (supra), I do not find any reason
to interfere the finding of the trial Court about
multiplier. Accordingly, Point No.2 for
consideration is decided.
15. Learned counsel for Respondents submitted
that the trial Court at the time of calculating
the compensation, has not considered the future
prospects of the deceased Rajendra Kenge. He
submitted that
the deceased was Engineer and
was working with Irrigation Department of State of
he
Maharashtra for more than 6 to 8 years. He
further submitted that considering the service
record of deceased, the trial Court ought to have
considered the future prospects of the deceased
for determining the amount of compensation. He
submitted that the Apex Court in the Judgment
reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 179,
Sarla Dixit (Smt) and another vs. Balwant Yadav
and others, held that future prospects of
advancement in life and career should also sounded
in terms of money at the time of fixing the
compensation. He relied on Para 7 of the
Judgment, which reads as under:
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
18
“7. So far as the adoption of the
proper multiplier is concerned, it was
observed that the future prospects of
advancement in life and career should also
be sounded in terms of money to augment the
multiplicand. While chance of the
multiplier is determined by two factors,
namely, the rate of interest appropriate to
stable economy and the age of the deceased
or of the claimant whichever is higher, the
ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more
difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors
have to be put into the scales to evaluate
the contingencies of the future. All
contingencies of the future need not
necessarily be baneful. Applying these
principles to the facts of the case before
this Court in the aforesaid case it was
observed that the deceased in that case was
of 39 years of age. His income was Rs.1032
per month. He was more or less on a stable
job and considering the prospects of
advancement in future career the proper
higher estimate of monthly income of
Rs.2000 as a gross income to be taken as
average future gross future income of the
deceased and deducting at least 1/3
therefrom by way of personal expenses, had
he survived the loss of dependency, could
be capitalized by adopting the multiplicand
of Rs.1400 per month or Rs.17000 per year
and that figure could be capitalized by
adopting multiplier of 12 which was
appropriate to the age of the deceased
being 39 and to that amount was added the
conventional figure of Rs.15000 by way of
loss of consortium and loss of estate.
Adopting the same scientific yard stick as
laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, the
computation of compensation in the present
case can almost be subjected to a well
settled mathematical formula. Deceased in
the present case, as seen above, was
earning gross salary of Rs.1543 per month.
Rounding it up to figure of Rs.1500 and
keeping in view all the future prospects
which the deceased had in stable military
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
19
service in the light of his brilliant
academic record and performance in the
military service spread over 7 years, and
also keeping in view the other
imponderables like accidental death while
discharging military duties and hazards of
military service, it will not be
unreasonable to predicate that his gross
monthly income would have shot up to at
least double than what he was earning at
the time of his death, i.e., up to Rs.3000
per month had he survived in life and had
successfully completed his future military
career till the time of superannuation.
The average gross future monthly income
could be arrived at by adding the actual
gross income at the time of death, namely
Rs.1500 per month to the maximum which he
would have otherwise got had he not died a
premature death, i.e. , Rs.3000 per month
and dividing that figure by two. Thus, the
average gross monthly income spread over
his entire future career, had it been
available, would work out to Rs.4500
divided by 2, i.e., Rs.2200. Rs.2000 per
month would have been the gross monthly
average income available to the family of
the deceased had he survived as a bread
winner. From that gross monthly income at
least 1/3 will have to be deducted by way
of his personal expenses and other
liabilities like payment of income tax etc.
That would roughly work out to Rs.730/- per
month but even taking a higher figure of
Rs.750 per month and deducting the same by
way of average personal expenses of the
deceased from the average gross earning of
Rs.2200 per month balance of Rs.1450 which
can be rounded up to Rs.1500 per month
would have been the average amount
available to the family of the deceased,
i.e. , his dependents, namely, appellants
herein. It is this figure which would be
the datum figure per month which on annual
basis would work out to Rs.18000/-.
Rs.18000/- therefore would be the proper
multiplicand which would be available for
capitalization for computing the future
economic loss suffered by the appellants on
account of untimely death of the bread
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
20
winner. As the age of the deceased was 27
years and a few months at the time of his
death, the proper multiplier in the light
of the aforesaid decision of this Court in
GM Kerala S.R.T.C. would be 15.
Rs.18000/- multiplied by 15 will work out
to Rs.2,70,000/-. To this figure will have
to be added the conventional figure of
Rs.15000/- by way of loss of estate and
consortium etc. That will lead to a total
figure of Rs.2,85,000/-. This is the
amount which the appellants would be
entitled to get by way of compensation from
respondents 1 and 2 subject to our decision
on point no.2.”
16. Learned
counsel for the Respondents also
relied on the Judgment reported in 2006 (4) Mh.
L.J. Page 161, Kantabai w/o Sureshchandra Doshi
and others vs. Ahmed Khan Chand Khan (deceased)
by his LRs. Muktyarbi w/o Ahmed Khan and others
in which also the High Court held that future
prospects of the deceased should be considered at
the time of fixing the compensation.
17. On the other hand, learned A.G.P.
appearing for the Appellants submitted that the
Respondents failed to produce a single document on
record to show future prospects of the deceased
Rajendra Kenge. He further submitted that even
PW1 father of deceased nowhere stated in his
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
21
evidence about the future prospects of the
deceased. Therefore, for want of any material on
record, it is not possible to consider the future
prospects of the deceased. Learned A.G.P.
further submitted that even the Respondents/
original claimants failed to produce any
documentary evidence on record to show that the
deceased was appointed on permanent basis as
Engineer in the Irrigation Department of State of
Maharashtra. The Respondents failed to produce on
record an
appointment
Engineer in Irrigation Department.
letter of deceased as
18. It is thus clear that neither the
Respondents/ original claimants produced any
documentary evidence on record to show that the
deceased was appointed on permanent basis as
Engineer in the Irrigation Department of State of
Maharashtra nor the PW1 the father of the deceased
stated anything about future prospects in his
evidence. For want of evidence on record, it is
not possible to consider the future prospects of
deceased at the time of calculating the
compensation payable to the Respondents/ original
claimants. Accordingly Point No.3 for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
22
consideration is decided.
19. Considering the above mentioned facts and
circumstances in the present case, I hold that the
deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.1130/- per
month to his family. Therefore, on the basis of
contribution of Rs.1130/-, the Respondents/
original claimants are entitled a sum of
Rs.2,03,400/- towards the compensation instead of
Rs.1,03,900/- as awarded by the trial Court.
Accordingly
decided
Point No.4 for consideration
and held that trial Court has not awarded
is
compensation properly.
20. The trial Court awarded interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of Application i.e.
10th July, 1989 till realisation of the amount.
But considering the present trend of Banking
transactions, I hold that the Respondents/
original claimants are entitled interest at the
rate of 7% per annum on enhanced compensation from
19th March, 1996, i.e. the date on which they
filed Cross Objection till realisation of the
amount. In sum and substance, Respondents/
original claimants are entitled 12% interest on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
23
enhanced compensation from 10th July, 1989 i.e.
date on which Application filed by them for
compensation, till 18th March, 1996, the date on
which they filed Cross Objections in this Court,
and from 19th March, 1996, Respondents are
entitled 7% interest per annum on enhanced
compensation till realisation of the amount.
Therefore, the following Order:
O R D E R
i) First Appeal No.109 of 1995 filed
by the State of Maharashtra is dismissed
with no order as to the costs.
ii) Cross Objection St. No.6197 of
1996 preferred by the Respondents/ original
claimants is partly allowed.
iii) Respondents / original claimants
are entitled compensation in totality to
the tune of Rs.2,03,400/-.
iv) Respondents/ original claimants are
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::
24entitled interest on enhanced compensation
at the rate of 12% per annum from 10th
July, 1989 till 18th March, 1996 (date of
filing of Cross Objection).
v) Respondents are entitled interest
on enhanced compensation at the rate of 7%
per annum from 19th March, 1996 till
realisation of the amount.
vi)
First Appeal is dismissed and Cross
Objections are partly allowed, accordingly.
vi) No order as to the costs.
[K.K. TATED]
JUDGE.
asb/u/fa109.95
AUTHENTICATED COPY
(A.S. Bhagwat),
Personal Assistant to
the Honourable Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:36:01 :::