Bombay High Court
Manager, Ardee Polypack Industries And ... vs Nidgiri Satyappa Pujari on 16 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993ACJ1206
JUDGMENT M.L. Dudhat, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the decision, dated 17th January, 1987, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Ratnagiri in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 61 of 1986.
2. Appellant No. 1 in this case is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Appellant No. 2 is the driver of the vehicle and appellant No. 3 is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Ratnagiri. By the award, dated 17th January, 1987, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri, awarded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the present respondent, the brother of the deceased Durgappa Pujari.
3. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-claimant that his brother Durgappa met with an accident on 4th June, 1986, at Shivajinagar, Ratnagiri. Due to the said accident the vehicle belonging to appellant No. 1, driven by appellant No. 2, knocked down the deceased Durgappa who ultimately succumbed to death. Respondent-claimant, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal contending therein that the deceased was earning about Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month for about 8 months a year and during the rainy season he used to work with the claimant in their agricultural field. The claimant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence as led by the parties, awarded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- on all counts. It is this award which is the subject-matter of challenge by the present appellants.
5. Mr. Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Tribunal, while arriving at the figure of Rs. 45,000/-, had committed error in not taking into consideration two important aspects which the Tribunal is legally duty-bound to take into consideration while awarding compensation. He contended that the Tribunal awarded amount of Rs. 45,000/- after taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month. While doing so the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the witness in terms has stated that the deceased used to earn the aforesaid income at Ratnagiri for eight months in a year and for remaining four months in a year he used to work in the agricultural field belonging to himself and his brother. If one calculates the income of the deceased, then the same cannot be Rs. 4,800/- per year but it will be only Rs. 3,200/- a year and if one calculates the amount on the basis of Rs. 3,200/- per year, the amount will be far less than what was awarded by the Tribunal. It was also contended by Mr. Chaphekar for the appellants that the Tribunal failed to deduct the benefit accruing to the claimant brother of the deceased from acceleration of his interest in the estate and lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that while arriving at the figure of Rs. 45,000/- compensation, the Tribunal has not given the break-up of the said award. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended on behalf of the present appellants that the award to the claimant cannot exceed in any case more than the amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
6. As against this, Mr. Parag Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the award of Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. According to him, the deceased was earning about Rs. 750/- per month and after deducting the expenses which he required to spend at Ratnagiri, he used to send amount of Rs. 400/- to his brother claimant. The Tribunal calculated the aforesaid income of the deceased for a period of 14 years and thereafter the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 45,000/-. According to Mr. Parag Kale, the said award being reasonable should not be disturbed.
7. I have heard both the sides. According to me, Tribunal erred in not giving the breakup of amount of Rs. 45,000/-. Apart from that, it appears that the deceased was working only for 8 months out of a year and for four months he used to work in the agricultural field belonging to the joint Hindu family. After taking into consideration this aspect some amount will have to be deducted from the award of Rs. 45,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Further the claimant himself has stated that the deceased was the coparcener along with the claimant owning agricultural field at their native place. Admittedly, at the time of death the deceased was not married and had no children. After his death the claimant being the only surviving member of the joint family will get the share of the deceased. The trial court ought to have deducted this benefit accrued to the claimant from acceleration of the interest in the estate. Unfortunately, there is no statistical data available in the evidence or in the judgment to arrive at conclusion one way or the other on the aforesaid point. Therefore, after taking into consideration the aforesaid two points, I am of the opinion that it would be reasonable to award amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant with the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal and proportionate costs. I, therefore, award amount of . 30,000/- to the claimant with the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal and proportionate costs.
8. Mr. Chaphekar has stated that the appellants have already deposited decretal amount in the lower court with interest and costs thereon. Out of the said amount deposited, the respondent has withdrawn amount of Rs. 15,000/-. I direct the balance of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited in the joint names of the respondent and his wife Mallavva Nidgiri Pujari in the National Saving Certificates VII Issue for a period of six years. The said amount is not to be withdrawn by the respondent without prior sanction of the Tribunal for a minimum period of six years from the date of investment.
9. After deducting the amount of Rs. 30,000/- along with the interest and costs as mentioned from the decretal amount deposited by the appellants in the court, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the balance of the amount without furnishing any security.
10. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.