Allowed

1. Rakhamabai Kondiiba Lashakaaree and Ors. v. 1. Damodar Shripad Vahul and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2009FA/814/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Tribunal award. Increased the quantum of compensation from Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000 by correcting the multiplier and monthly dependency calculations. Directed payment of the additional amount with interest at 7.5% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.25,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded to appellants.

1. Rakhamabai Kondiiba Lashakaaree and Ors. Vs 1… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.814 OF 1992

¶4

1 Rakhamabai Kondiba Lashakare

¶5

2 Suresh K.Lashakare
3 Sunita K.Lashkare
4 Shashikant K.Lashakare

¶6

5 Dhanraja K.Lashakare
6 Santosh K.Lashkare(deleted)
7 Sampat K. Lashakare ...Appellants
vs.
1 Damodar Shripad Vahul

¶7

2 Manohar Baurao Jadhav

¶8

3 Oriental Fire & General Insurance
 Co.Ltd. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.M.Oak for the appellants
Mr.N.V.Gangal for the respondents

¶10

 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.
 DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2009

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

1I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The
challenge in this appeal preferred by the original
claimants is to the Judgment and Award dated 10th October
1991 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. The first appellant is the mother of
the deceased. The name of the deceased is Chandrakant.
The 2nd to 7th appellants are the brothers and sisters of
the deceased. The deceased died in a motor accident on
28th December 1987 involving a truck which was owned by
the 2nd respondent and which was at the relevant time
insured with the 3rd respondent-company. The claim made

¶13

¶14

with the tribunal was in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. The

¶15

tribunal held that the accident occurred due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.
However, the tribunal granted compensation of only Rs.
25,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a.

¶16

2The learned counsel for the appellants has invited
my attention to the finding recorded by the tribunal as
regards the quantum of compensation. He pointed out that
the deceased was employed and after the demise of his
father, the deceased was the earning livelihood for
supporting the family. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants is that the multiplier of 10
adopted by the tribunal is not proper and instead
multiplier of 18 ought to have been taken. He placed
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of
Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ([2009] SCC
129 ). He submitted that the appellants were entitled to
compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

¶17

3The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent supported
the impugned Judgment and Award and submitted that no
interference is called for.

¶18

4I have carefully considered the submissions. In the
present case, the age of the first appellant who is
stated to be a dependent on the deceased is more than the

¶19

¶20

age of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier will have
to be determined on the basis of the age of the 1st
appellant. Her age at the time of the death of the
deceased is stated to be 35 years. Therefore, in terms
of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma
(supra), multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied.
The tribunal has applied multiplier of only 10.

¶21

5Apart from applying lower multiplier, the tribunal
has committed an error by taking the monthly earnings of
the deceased only at Rs.225/- per month. It is noted
that the deceased was doing the job of loading and
unloading goods from trucks.Considering the fact that

¶22

the age of the deceased was only 18 years, for the
purpose of calculating multiplicand higher income ought
to have been considered. Even if income of the deceased

¶23

is taken at Rs.15/- per day for 26 days of a month, the
monthly income will be Rs.390/- per month. After
deducting 1/3rd amount, the monthly dependancy will be
Rs.260/-. Hence, yearly dependancy will be Rs.3120/-.
Applying multiplier of 16, the compensation will be Rs.
49,920/-.Considering the aforesaid aspects, the
compensation of Rs.50,000/- prayed for by the
appellants was just and reasonable and the same ought to
have been awarded.

¶24

6The claim petition filed by the claimants is of the

¶25

¶26

year 1980. Interest rates have considerably gone down in
the recent past. The claim petition remained pending as
earlier there was an order of remand. Therefore,
interest at the rate of 7.5% will have to be awarded on
the enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/-.

¶27

7Hence, I pass the following order :
i)In addition to the amount awarded by the
impugned Judgment and Award, 2nd and 3rd respondents

¶28

are directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.
25,000/- to the appellants together with interest
thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of
filing of application i.e. 17th April 1980 till the
deposit of the amount with the tribunal.
ii)Time of four months is granted to the 3rd

¶29

respondent to comply with the Award. As and when
additional compensation is deposited, the tribunal
will pass an order of disbursement of the amount
after hearing the parties.

¶30

iii)Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.

¶31

 JUDGE

1. Rakhamabai Kondiiba Lashakaaree and Ors. v. 1. Damodar Shripad Vahul and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Rakhamabai Kondiiba Lashakaaree and Ors. v. 1. Damodar Shripad Vahul 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Shri Chandrakant Genu Ghuge and Ors.

Gobindram H. Ahuja Vs Ratan Irani and Ors.

Kanta Balkishan Jaju and Anr. Vs Citibank N.a.and Ors.

Tarabai Bhausaheb Deokar Vs Jaywant Mahepati Balwadkar and Ors.

Abdul Hameed Mohd. Ishaq Khan Vs Mehmood Jainuddin Mujawar and Ors.

Yogesh K. Kusumgar Vs Shashank P. Shroff and Ors.