{"id":101650,"date":"2010-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-25T08:37:53","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T03:07:53","slug":"executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: F.M. Reis<\/div>\n
                                                                 1\n\n                                       FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                      \n                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                                          First Appeal No.91\/1993\n\n\n                     Executive Engineer,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                     Medium Project Division,\n                     Yeotmal.                                                                    ..APPELLANT\n                                                                                     (Ori. Non-applicant No.1)\n\n                               ..VERSUS..\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                     1.        Smt. Sunanda W\/o Madhukar Mahalley,\n                                               \n                               Aged about 30 Yrs., Occu. Household,\n                               R\/o Bramhanwada (Govindrapur),\n                               P.S. Mahuli Jahangir,\n                                              \n                               District Amravati.\n\n                     2.        Ku. Savita D\/o Madhukarrao Mahalley,\n                               Aged about 13 Yrs., Minor.\n              \n\n                     3.        Ku. Vanita D\/o Madhukar Mahalley,\n                               Aged about 3 Yrs., Minor.\n           \n\n\n\n                               Respondents 2 and 3 through G.A.L.\n                               Mother respondent no.1\/original Applicant\n\n                     4.        Gangaram S\/o Mahadu Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Aged about 30 Yrs., R\/o Shembalpimpri,\n                               Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal,\n                               presently R\/o Singandoh, Project,\n                               P.S. Ladkhed,\n                               Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. (Or. N.A. No.2)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                    ..RESPONDENTS\n    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                               Ms R.A. Wasnik, A.G.P. for appellant.\n                               Mr. Bharat Vora, counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.\n                               Mr. K.R. Lambat & Mr. D.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondent no.4.\n    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::\n                                  2\n\n\n                Coram : F.M.REIS, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                Dated : 3rd March 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     1.      Heard   the   learned   A.G.P.   for   appellant,   learned <\/p>\n
     counsel   for   the   respondent   nos.1   to   3     and   the   learned
\n     counsel for the respondent  no4.\n<\/p>\n
     2.      The parties shall be referred in the manner as they <\/p>\n
     appear in the cause title of the impugned award dated 29th
\n     September 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      The respondent nos.1 to 3\/applicants  filed a claim <\/p>\n
     for compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- on account of
\n     death of deceased Madhukar Pundlik Mahalley caused on <\/p>\n
     account     of   a   motor   accident   which   occurred   on   3rd
\n     December 1989 at around 3.30 p.m.   It is the case of the <\/p>\n
     said applicants that on the said date the said deceased had
\n     gone to the bus-stand at Ner and he found a truck tanker
\n     bearing   No.MHV-1388   was   stationary   on   the   road,   the <\/p>\n
     non-applicant no.2 was the driver of the said truck tanker.
\n     As the said truck was not starting, the deceased along with
\n     some   other   persons   pushed   the   tanker   and   immediately
\n     the tanker started but the   non-applicant no.2 could not <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     stop   the   tanker   which   resulted   in   the   deceased   coming <\/p>\n
     beneath   the   tanker     thereby   causing   his   death.       It   is
\n     further their contention that the said accident occurred on <\/p>\n
     account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the
\n     non-applicant   no.2   and   consequently,   filed   said   petition <\/p>\n
     for   the   compensation   against   the   non-applicant   no.2   as
\n     well   as   the   non-applicant   no.1   who   are   admittedly   the
\n     owners of the said tanker.   It is further their contention <\/p>\n
     that   the   said   deceased   was   earning   Rs.420\/-   per   month <\/p>\n
     and in view of his death, the applicants are entitled to a
\n     sum   of   Rs.1,66,400\/-   on   account   of   the   dependency <\/p>\n
     besides a sum of Rs.25,000\/- on account of shock and loss
\n     of consortium however, they have restricted their claim  to
\n     a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     4.          The claim of the applicants was resisted by the
\n     non-applicant   nos.1   and   2   by   filing   their   written
\n     statements   which   are   at   Exh.20   and   28.       It   is   the <\/p>\n
     contention of the of the non-applicant no.1 that they do
\n     not dispute that they are the owners of the said vehicle nor
\n     that   the   non-applicant   no.2   was   an   employee   of   the <\/p>\n
     non-applicant no.1.   They also did not dispute   that the
\n     accident   occurred   which   resulted   in   the   death   of   the
\n     deceased   however,   they   disputed   the   contention   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
     applicants to the effect that the accident occurred due to <\/p>\n
     rash   and   negligent   driving   on   the   part   of   the
\n     non-applicant. It is further their contention that although <\/p>\n
     non-applicant no.2 was in service, the said non-applicant
\n     was in-charge of the road roller and he was on duty and it <\/p>\n
     was his duty to drive the road roller  and no other vehicle.
\n     It  is   further   their   driver   of   the  said   ill-fated  tanker,   and
\n     that the non-applicant no.2 had no authority to drive the <\/p>\n
     said   vehicle   and   that   on   the   eventful   date   the   non-\n<\/p>\n
     applicant   no.2   without     the   permission   of   the   higher
\n     authorities took the tanker into his custody and caused the <\/p>\n
     accident with the said vehicle.   The act of driving of said
\n     vehicle   by   non-applicant   no.2   was   unauthorized   and   as
\n     such the non-applicant no.1 is not vicariously liable for the <\/p>\n
     act of the non-applicant no.2.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           In the written statement filed by non-applicant
\n     no.2 he admitted that he took the tanker from Singandoh <\/p>\n
     to Ner and that the deceased came beneath the tanker at
\n     the   relevant   time   and   place   and   died.     He   further
\n     contended that he was in charge of the road roller but as <\/p>\n
     an   experienced   driver   was   also   assigned   a   job   to   drive
\n     other   vehicles   by   the   higher   authority   as   and   when
\n     required.  It is further his contention that as the wife of the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
     Watchman   suddenly   fell   ill,   at   the   request   of   the <\/p>\n
     Watchman he took her to  the hospital to give her medical
\n     aid.       At   the   relevant   place,   he   had   not   requested   the <\/p>\n
     deceased to push the tanker but he on his own came near
\n     the tanker and fell which resulted in his death on account <\/p>\n
     of   his   own   negligence.   Consequently,   the   said
\n     non-applicants prayed that the Claim petition deserves to
\n     be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
                 The Motor Accident claim Tribunal after framing
\n     the issues and recording the evidence by award dated 29th <\/p>\n
     September   1992   partly     decreed     the   claim   of   the
\n     applicants  and directed the non-applicants  to pay jointly
\n     and severally a sum of Rs.86,000\/- inclusive of the no-fault <\/p>\n
     liability compensation to the applicants with interest at the <\/p>\n
     rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the application
\n     until   the   actual   payment.     Being   aggrieved   by   the   said
\n     award,   the   non-applicant   no.1   has  preferred   the   present <\/p>\n
     appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     7.          The learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant <\/p>\n
     submitted that there was no justification in directing the
\n     non-applicant no.1 to pay compensation to the applicants.
\n     It is  her  contention  that  the  non-applicant  no.2   was  not <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
     authorized to drive the said vehicle and as such the act on <\/p>\n
     the   part   of   the   non-applicant   no.2   was   unlawful   and   as
\n     such the non-applicant no.1 is not liable to pay the said <\/p>\n
     compensation   to   the   applicants.     It   is   further   her
\n     contention that the non-applicant no.1 cannot be held to <\/p>\n
     be vicariously liable to pay the amount as according to the
\n     learned   A.G.P.,   the   act   on   the   part   of   the   non-applicant
\n     no.2   was   unauthorized   and   as   such   no   liability   can   be <\/p>\n
     fastened   on   them.   The   learned   A.G.P.   further   submitted <\/p>\n
     that there is no evidence to show that the non-applicant
\n     no.2   was   driving   the   said   vehicle   rashly   and  negligently <\/p>\n
     and as such the non-applicant no.1 is not liable to pay the
\n     said amount.   It is further her submission that the appeal
\n     deserves to be allowed and award of the Tribunal directing <\/p>\n
     the non-applicant no.1 to pay the amount deserves to be <\/p>\n
     quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     8.          On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
     appearing   for   the   applicants   supported   the   award   and
\n     submitted that there was ample evidence on record to the
\n     effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent <\/p>\n
     driving on the part of the non-applicant no.2.  It is further
\n     his submission that there is a presumption that once the
\n     ownership   of   the   said   tanker   has   been   admitted   by   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
     non-applicant no.2, he is vicariously liable to the acts of <\/p>\n
     the driver.     It is further his submission that there is no
\n     evidence on record to show that the respondent no.2 was <\/p>\n
     not   authorized   to   drive   the   said   vehicle.   He   has   further
\n     submitted that in fact the witnesses of the non-applicant <\/p>\n
     no.1 had admitted that in case of emergency situation, the
\n     said tanker could have been taken to provide medical aid
\n     to   persons   who   are   in   need   of   such   aid.     He   further <\/p>\n
     submitted that the non-applicant  no.2 in fact allowed to <\/p>\n
     drive the vehicles as and when the need arises and as such
\n     it   cannot   be   said   that   the   act   on   the   part   of   the   non-\n<\/p>\n
     applicant   no.2   was   unauthorized.   The   learned   counsel
\n     further submitted that the accident occurred due to rash
\n     and negligent driving of the non-applicant no.2 on account <\/p>\n
     of his failure to stop the said vehicle after the same has <\/p>\n
     started. He accordingly submitted that no interference is
\n     called   for   in   the   impugned   award   passed   by   the   Motor
\n     Accident   Claim’s   Tribunal   and   that   the   appeal   has   no <\/p>\n
     merits and deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           The learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2 <\/p>\n
     has submitted that the non-applicant   was authorized to
\n     drive   the   said   vehicle   though   at   the   time   of   specific
\n     eventualities and as such it cannot be said that his act to <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
     drive the ill-fated tanker was unauthorized.  He has further <\/p>\n
     submitted that the non-applicant no.2 is a poor person and
\n     is not in position to pay any amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         Having heard the learned A.G.P. and the learned <\/p>\n
     counsels for the parties and on perusal of the records the
\n     following   points   arise   for   determination   in   the   present
\n     appeal –\n<\/p>\n
            1.     Whether   the   non-applicant   no.1\/appellant
\n                   are   vicariously   liable   to   pay   the <\/p>\n
                   compensation to the applicants\/respondent
\n                   nos.1 to 3 on account of the accident which
\n                   resulted in the death of the deceased ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.     Whether the compensation awarded by the
\n                   Motor   Accident   clam’s   Tribunal   is <\/p>\n
                   exorbitant ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.         Dealing with the said points for determination,
\n     in the cross examination of Vishwanath Joshi on behalf of <\/p>\n
     the   applicant   no.1   he   has   admitted   that   in   case   of
\n     emergency     when   a   person   had   need   of   medical   help   a
\n     vehicle of the department is used for taking such a person <\/p>\n
     to   the   hospital.     In   such   cases   the   permission   can   be
\n     granted             ex-post-facto. He has further stated that the
\n     enquiry revealed that the Watchman had asked the non-\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
     applicant no.2 to take the vehicle   to provide medical aid <\/p>\n
     to   his   wife.   The   said   submissions   of   the     non-applicant
\n     no.1   discloses   that   in   case   of   emergency   situation   the <\/p>\n
     truck\/tanker   could   have   been   used   which   belong   to   the
\n     department   to   take   the   persons   who   required   medical <\/p>\n
     attention.  In the present case it is not in dispute that the
\n     tanker was being used to take the wife of the Watchman
\n     for medical aid to the hospital at Ner.  This discloses that <\/p>\n
     the taking vehicle to Ner by the non-applicant no.2 at the <\/p>\n
     relevant time  cannot be said to be unauthorized.\n<\/p>\n
     12.         As far as the contention that the non-applicant
\n     no.2 was not authorized to drive the said vehicle, I find
\n     that   the   said   non-applicant   has   stated   in   his   deposition <\/p>\n
     that he was working as an Operator of the road roller at <\/p>\n
     Singandoh   project.   He   has   further   stated   that   he   also
\n     worked as a driver of truck as per the oral order of the
\n     Project Officer.  If any regular driver was on leave, he was <\/p>\n
     asked to drive the vehicle by the superiors.   He has further
\n     stated that the driver of the truck bearing No.1388 was on
\n     leave on the relevant date and that the wife of Watchman <\/p>\n
     was ill and as such he took her to the hospital in the said
\n     truck to Ner.  He has further stated that he was entitled to
\n     take away the said vehicle for private purposes, provided <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
     he   paid   certain   amount   to   the   office.     He   has   further <\/p>\n
     deposed that the starter of the tanker was not in order and
\n     hence he collected some persons and asked them to push <\/p>\n
     the said tanker which he had parked near the bus-stand.
\n     He further deposed that he had not called the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     The  next  witness  examined  by the  non-applicant   no.1  is
\n     the driver Shri Vasant Waghade.  He deposed that he had
\n     never   authorized   the   non-applicant   no.2   to   drive   the <\/p>\n
     tanker nor he was authorized by any other person to drive <\/p>\n
     the   said   tanker.     He   further   deposed   that   he   left   the
\n     premises at around 5.30 p.m. on 21\/2\/1989 and he had <\/p>\n
     kept   the   tanker   at   the   site   and   asked   the   Watchman   to
\n     keep watch on the said tanker as he had taken leave on
\n     account of the illness of his mother.  He further deposed <\/p>\n
     that on the date when he parked the said vehicle, he let <\/p>\n
     the   wires   of   the   battery   loose   to   take   necessary
\n     precautions.    In the cross examination,  he admitted that
\n     even   if   the   wires   of   the   battery   of   the   tanker   are   not <\/p>\n
     operating, the tanker can be started by giving a push.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          Though   the   evidence   on   record   may   disclose <\/p>\n
     that   there   was   no   order   to   the   non-appellant   no.2
\n     authorizing him to drive the said tanker on the said date
\n     nevertheless,   the   evidence   demonstrates   that   in   specific <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
     eventualities, the non-applicant no.2 was allowed to drive <\/p>\n
     the said vehicle as per the oral instructions of the officers.
\n     The witness of the non-applicant – Shri Joshi in his cross <\/p>\n
     examination also admitted that in the enquiry which was
\n     held there was no evidence to show that the non-applicant <\/p>\n
     no.2 had forcefully taken the vehicle from the site.  Apart
\n     from the fact that the evidence of the non-applicant no.1
\n     further disclosed that though it was contended by the said <\/p>\n
     non-applicant that taking the vehicle unauthorizedly was a <\/p>\n
     serious mater nevertheless, no punishment was inflicted on
\n     the   non-appellant   no.2   on   account   of   such   acts.\n<\/p>\n
     Considering that at the relevant time even the Technical
\n     Assistant was not available at site, I find that, in the overall
\n     consideration   of   the   mater,   there   was   implicit   approvals <\/p>\n
     for   the   non-applicant   no.2   to   drive   the   said   vehicle   in <\/p>\n
     emergency situation. The evidence further discloses that at
\n     the   instance   of   the   said   Watchman   who   was   also   an
\n     employee   of   non-appellant   no.1,   the   non-applicant   no.2 <\/p>\n
     was forced to drive the said vehicle in view of the fact that
\n     the wife of the said Watchman was ill.   In the judgment
\n     reported  in  AIR 1979  Karnataka  134  ( K. Jayaraja  Ballal  <\/p>\n
     V\/s.   Alfred   Quadres   and   another   )  relying   upon   the
\n     judgment   of   the   Apex   Court   it   has   been   held   that   the
\n     presumption is  that the driver of motor vehicle is driving <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
     the vehicle on his own master’s business as his authorized <\/p>\n
     agent.     The   burden   is   on   the   owner   to   rebut   the
\n     presumption. If a person drives a vehicle with the consent <\/p>\n
     of   the   owner   or   his   Manager,   the   owner   will   became
\n     vicariously liable for the accident caused by the driver.  It <\/p>\n
     is further been held that when the owner of the vehicle has
\n     exclusive   charge   of   the   vehicle,     and   the   driver   allows
\n     another person to drive the said vehicle which resulted in <\/p>\n
     an accident, the owner will became liable for the damages <\/p>\n
     for the injury caused.     The Apex Court in the judgment
\n     reported in 1996 (2) Bom. C.R. 153 ( State of Maharashtra  <\/p>\n
     and  others  V\/s.    Kanchanmala  Vijaysingh  and others)  has
\n     held at para 9 as under –\n<\/p>\n
               “The question of payment of compensation for <\/p>\n
           motor  accidents  has  assumed great   importance
\n           during the last few decades.  The road accidents <\/p>\n
           have touched a new height in India as well as in
\n           other   parts   of   the   world.   Traditionally,   before
\n           the   Court   directed   payment   of   tort <\/p>\n
           compensation, the claimant had to establish the
\n           fault   of   the   persons   causing   injury   or   damage.
\n           But   of   late,       it   shall   appear   from   different
\n           judicial   pronouncement   that   the   fault   is   being
\n           read   as   because   of   someone’s   negligence   or <\/p>\n
           carelessness.   Same is the approach and attitude
\n           of the Courts while judging the vicarious liability
\n           of the employer for negligence of the employee. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Negligence   is   the   commission   to  do   something
\n           which   a   reasonable   man   expected   to   do   or   a <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
      prudent   man   expected     to   do.   Whether   in   the
\n      facts and circumstances of a particular case, the <\/p>\n
      person causing injury to the other was negligent
\n      or   not   has   to   be   examined   on   the   material <\/p>\n
      produced before the Court.  It is the rule that an
\n      employer,   though   guilty   of   no   fault   himself,   is
\n      liable   for   the   damage   done   by   the   fault   or
\n      negligence of his servant acting in the course of <\/p>\n
      his employment.   In some case, it can be found
\n      that an employee was doing an authorized act in
\n      an unauthorized but not a prohibited way.  The
\n      employer   shall   be   liable   for   such   act,   because <\/p>\n
      such employee was acting within a scope of his
\n      employment   and   in   so   acting   did   something <\/p>\n
      negligent or wrongful.   A master is liable even
\n      for   acts   which   he   has  not   authorized   provided
\n      they   are   so   connected   with   acts   which   he   has <\/p>\n
      been so authorized.     On the other hand, if the
\n      act of the servant is not even remotely connected
\n      within   the   scope   of   employment   and   is   an
\n      independent   act,   the   Master   shall   not   be <\/p>\n
      responsible because the servant is not acting in <\/p>\n
      the   course   of   his   employment   but   has   gone
\n      outside.  In Salmands Law of  Tort (28th Edn.)  at
\n      page 458 it has been said ;\n<\/p>\n
                    “On  the   other  hand it   has been  held <\/p>\n
      that a servant who is authorized to drive a motor
\n      vehicle and who permits an unauthorized person
\n      to drive it in his place, may yet be acting within
\n      the   scope   of   his   employment.     The   act   of
\n      permitting another to drive may a mode, albeit <\/p>\n
      and improper one, of doing the authorized work,
\n      the master may even be responsible if a servant
\n      impliedly,   and   not   expressly,   permits   an
\n      unauthorized   person   to   drive   the   vehicle,   as
\n      where he leaves it unattained in such a manner <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
           that   it   is   reasonably   foreseeable   that   the   third
\n           party   will   attempt   to   drive   it,   at   least   if   the <\/p>\n
           driver retains notional control of the vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n
     14.         In   view   of   the   said   judgment   and   from   the
\n     material on record it is oblivious that the act committed by <\/p>\n
     the   non-applicant   no.2   was   within   the   course   of   the
\n     employment and as such the non-applicant no.1 is liable to
\n     pay the compensation for the rash and negligent driving of <\/p>\n
     the vehicle by the non-applicant no.2.  As such, I find that <\/p>\n
     no interference is called for in the findings of the Tribunal
\n     to   the   effect   that   the   non-applicant   no.1   is   vicariously <\/p>\n
     liable to pay for the acts committed by the non-applicant
\n     no.2.     The   said   point   for   determination   is   answered
\n     accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     15.         With   regard   to   the   contention   of   the   learned
\n     counsel   for   the   appellant   as   far   as   the   quantum   of <\/p>\n
     compensation   is   concerned,   I   find   that   he   Tribunal   has
\n     awarded the compensation in a just and proper manner.
\n     The Tribunal has come to the conclusion considering the <\/p>\n
     uncertainties of human life and looking to the facts of the
\n     case that the amount of annual dependency was a sum of
\n     Rs.3,000\/-.   Considering   that   the   deceased   was   34   years
\n     the   Tribunal   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the   applicants <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
     were   entitled   for   a   sum   of   Rs.81,000\/-   on   account   of <\/p>\n
     dependency   and   a   further   sum   of   Rs.5,000\/-   has   been
\n     awarded   towards   consortium,   love   and  affection.     I  find <\/p>\n
     that   there   is   no   infirmity   committed   by   the   Tribunal   in
\n     awarding the compensation considering  the income of the <\/p>\n
     deceased and the age at the time of his death. The amount
\n     as awarded by the Tribunal is  in accordance with law and
\n     no interference is called for on that count.\n<\/p>\n
     16.<\/p>\n
                 In view of the above, there is no merits in the
\n     above   appeal   and   as   such   the   above   appeal   stands <\/p>\n
     dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
              Tambaskar.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:03 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 Bench: F.M. Reis 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No.91\/1993 Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Yeotmal. ..APPELLANT (Ori. Non-applicant No.1) ..VERSUS.. 1. Smt. Sunanda W\/o Madhukar Mahalley, Aged about 30 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nExecutive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3027,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010"},"wordCount":3027,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010","name":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T03:07:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-smt-sunanda-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sunanda on 3 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}