Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 377 (BOM)

Vindarbhir Kaur W/o Sohindarbhir Kaur Bhatiya v. Anusayabai W/o Ranba Sodgir

2012-02-21

M.T.JOSHI

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Read the order dated 24.06.2011. Since the appellant failed to take steps for service of respondent No.5, vide order 18.07.2011 the appeal was dismissed as against respondent No.5. Thereafter, the appellant served respondent No.5 as directed by order dated 24.06.0211, and thereupon learned counsel Mr. D.V. Soman and Mr. S.V. Kulkarni have filed their Vakalatnama independently in the proceedings Mr. D.V. Soman, learned counsel has filed recent Vakalatnama. It, therefore, appears that Mr. Soman is recently instructed to appear in the matter. 3. In that view of the matter, in the interest of justice, the order dated 18.07.2011 dismissing the appeal against respondent No.5, is hereby set aside. On the oral request of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. Aggrieved by the compensation of Rs.75,000/-granted by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, owner and driver i.e. original respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred present appeal. The First attack on the award is that the learned Member ought to have held that present respondent No.5 Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and the next attack is on quantum of the compensation granted by the learned Member as higher. 5. It should be noted that present appellants, as well as the original claimants, had both pleaded that the deceased Ranaba was traveling in the truck, as gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the reasoning of the learned Member that only owner and driver would be liable to pay the compensation, cannot be faulted with. 6. The deceased was travelling in goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger, in breach of terms and conditions and therefore the appeal to that extent as against respondent No.5 the Insurer deserves to be dismissed. 7. As regards quantum of compensation, it should be noted that the claimants had claimed that the deceased Ranba was earning Rs.25/-per day as a labour. The learned Member deducted 1/5 amount i.e. Rs.5/-towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.7200/-per annum. Since the deceased Ranba was 30 years old at the time of his unfortunate death, the learned Member has applied multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.5000/-was granted towards the "loss of company." Thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/-was granted by the learned Member. Hence, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.7200/-per annum. Since the deceased Ranba was 30 years old at the time of his unfortunate death, the learned Member has applied multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.5000/-was granted towards the "loss of company." Thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/-was granted by the learned Member. However, the claimant has filed claim for Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e. original claimants, submits that multiplier so applied by the learned Member i.e. 15 is wrong and in view of the ratio laid down in the case Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992 multiplier should be 17. Further, the learned Member was wrong in coming to the conclusion that compensation cannot be granted in excess of the quantum claimed in the application. 9. In that view of the matter, the compensation granted by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was, in fact, less than what ought to have awarded. 10. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.