Partly allowed

Shri Walya Jeevan Pardhi and Ors. v. Shri Ramsare Khaderu Chauhan and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2009FA/335/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal award. The court found the Tribunal's calculation of dependency and multiplier erroneous. It enhanced compensation to Rs. 48,600, directing the respondents to pay an additional Rs. 13,600 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 13,600 with interest at 7.5% per annum was granted to the appellants from the second respondents.

Shri Walya Jeevan Pardhi and Ors. Vs Shri Ramsare… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

335-98.sxw

¶2

kbp

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.335 OF 1998

¶6

Walya Jeevan Pardhi and ors.

¶7

..Appellants

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Ramsare Khaderu Chauhan and ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr.Sagar Joshi i/b.Mr.S.M.Oka, for appellants. Mr.S.R.Singh, for respondent no.2.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 5th December, 2009.

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

1] Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the

¶15

respondents. Taken up for final hearing.

¶16

2] The claimants in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

¶17

Vehicles Act, 1988 have preferred an appeal claiming enhancement of

¶18

compensation. The claim was made on account of demise of wife of the first

¶19

appellant in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/- with interest.

¶20

3] The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the

¶21

dependency taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating multiplicand is

¶22

335-98.sxw

¶23

kbp

¶24

¶25

on the lower side. The submission is that even the multiplier applied is on the

¶26

lower side and the multiplier ought to have been 14 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

¶27

[2009(6) SCC 121]. The learned counsel for the second respondent (insurer) supported the impugned judgment and award by pointing out that the appellants are adults and were earning on the date of accident, and therefore, the compensation awarded is just and proper.

¶28

4] I have carefully considered the submissions. The Tribunal has taken

¶29

income of the deceased at Rs.400/- per month which is certainly reasonable considering the fact that the deceased was stated to be doing labour work.

¶30

However, the dependency taken by the Tribunal of Rs.150/- per month is certainly on the lower side considering the income of Rs.400/- per month. The dependency ought to have been taken at Rs.200/- per month. In view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and considering the fact that the

¶31

age of the deceased was about 45 years, the multiplier of 14 will have to be applied. Therefore, the total compensation payable will be Rs.33,600/- to which

¶32

the usual amount of Rs.15,000/- will have to be added. The total amount, thus,

¶33

comes to Rs.48,600/-. Thus, the appellants will be entitled to enhancement of

¶34

Rs.13,600/-. As far as the interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, the

¶35

sane will have to be paid thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶36

335-98.sxw

¶37

kbp

¶38

¶39

5] Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶40

(a) In addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award, the first and second respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.13,600/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount with the tribunal.

¶41

(b) The appellants are entitled to the proportionate costs of the appeal from the first and second respondents.

¶42

¶43

and second appellants in equal shares.

¶44

(d) Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

¶45

( A.S.OKA, J. )

Shri Walya Jeevan Pardhi and Ors. v. Shri Ramsare Khaderu Chauhan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Walya Jeevan Pardhi and Ors. v. Shri Ramsare Khaderu Chauhan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sarita Lalit Prindavankar and Ors. Vs Ramnayak T.Dubey andANR.

Gayabai Alias Pushpa Madhu Shinde Vs Mohanabai Abaji Shinde

Association of Engineering Workers and Anr. Vs Mr Vishwas Patil Collector B.S D. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Shri Babu Narayan Desai Vs Shri Suleman Yusuf Dukha and Anr.

Shri Prithviraj Sahebrao Jachak Vs Smt. Vimal Dnyandeo Borwake and Others

Khalil Yakub Mujawar Vs 1. Smt. Sonabai Jyotiram Kalke and Ors.