Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 374 (BOM)

Vithal Laxman Zine v. Ashok Rangnath Raskar

2012-02-21

M.T.JOSHI

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the present appeal, the original claimants have assailed the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmednagar, aggrieved by grant of lessor compensation from respondent No.3 i.e. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. who is indemnifier to respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. owners of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. 3. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Laxman died, in a collision between motorcycle bearing No MFS 7768 and a truck bearing No MHQ-6205. The deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The Policy of the insurer did not cover the risk of the pillion rider, and therefore, the learned Member relied on the authorities as quoted in para No.17 of his Judgment and has found that since there was no insurance for the pillion rider, the insurer of the Scooter was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it was a statutory liability of the Insurance Company, but, the same is not supported by any law. It should be noted that during relevant period there was not statutory liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the pillion rider. In that view of the matter, the reasoning of the learned Member cannot be faulted with. 5. As regards quantum of the compensation, it is to be noted that though the appellant stated that he was serving in Sagar Department of Videcon Company and was receiving salary of Rs.560/-per month, no evidence in that regard is placed on record. The evidence was that the deceased was daily wager and was earning Rs.1875/-per day. The learned Member assumed the wages of the deceased @ 20/-per day and thus it was estimated that the deceased was earning Rs. 600/-per month. Upon deductions of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Member estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.400/-per month i.e. Rs. 4800/-per annum. 6. As regards multiplier, the learned Member, on the evidence found that the deceased was 29 years old at the time of accident and therefore, the learned Member, applied multiplier of 12. In view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, since the deceased was earning member of the family, multiplier 17 would be applicable. In view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, since the deceased was earning member of the family, multiplier 17 would be applicable. In that view of the matter, the compensation is required to be enhanced and it comes to Rs.4800 X 17 = 81,600/-. The learned Member had granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/-towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.91,600/-including an amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which was already paid to the claimants towards 'No Fault Liability'. The interest was granted by the learned Member @ 12% p.a. as was prevailing at the time of granting claim petition. The same shall be required to be continued on the enhanced amount of compensation. 7. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally do pay 50%, so also respondent Nos.4 to 6 jointly and severally do pay 50% of the enhanced amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application filed in the Tribunal i.e. from 11.04.1989 till realization of entire enhanced amount of compensation. The appeal as against respondent No.3 is dismissed without any orders as to costs.