AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
Heard learned counsel for parties.,,,
Admit. With consent of learned counsel for parties, the present first appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.",,,
The present appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 26th August, 2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident",,,
Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 193 of 2012, whereby allowed the claim petitions under Sections 166 and 140 of",,,
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “M.V. Actâ€) for compensation, arising out of the vehicular accident involving death of deceased -",,,
Popatrao Gulabrao Kate.,,,
The accident took place on 27-12-2010 at about 7.00 p.m. near Kanifnath Hotel located on Puneâ€"Ahmednagar road. At the relevant time of,,,
accident, the deceased Popatrao was walking down towards bus stop in southern side of Pune-Ahmednagar road. The motor vehicle ST Bus driven",,,
by driver namely Eknath Andhale hit him. The victim Popatrao sprawled on the ground and received fatal injuries. He became unconscious on the,,,
spot. He was escorted to the Hospital at Shirur, and thereafter, shifted to Pune for better medical treatment.",,,
Meanwhile, the information of the accident was passed on to the Police of Shirur Police Station. The Police rushed to the spot and drawn",,,
panchnama of scene of occurrence. The victim Popatrao hovering in between life and death since the occurrence of accident on 27-12-2010 till 15-,,,
01-2011. The medical experts made endeavour to resuscitate the victim Popatrao, but their efforts did not yield result. Eventually, the injured Popatrao",,,
breathed his last on 15-01-2011. The relative of deceased Popatrao, namely, Hanumant Baburao Kate approached to the Police Station and filed",,,
the report. Pursuant to the FIR, Police of Shirur Police Station registered the Crime No. 410 of 2010 under sections 279 and 304-A, etc. of Indian",,,
Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has carried out the investigation. He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the,,,
case. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against ST Bus driver. It has been alleged that the driver of ST Bus was so",,,
rash, negligent while driving the vehicle and caused death of the deceased Popatrao. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased",,,
Popatrao rushed to the Tribunal and moved the application under sections 166 and 140 of the M.V.Act for compensation arising out of vehicular,,,
accident involving death of their family member in the mishap.,,,
On receipt of notice, the respondent- MSRTC appeared in the proceeding and opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of claimants. The",,,
learned Tribunal after considering the entire factual score and evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get,,,
compensation amount for loss sustained to them following vehicular accident resulting into death of deceased Popatrao. Therefore, the learned",,,
Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Award, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.",,,
Mr.Goyanka, learned counsel for the appellant - MSRTC vehemently submits that the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is",,,
erroneous, illegal and not within purview of law. The Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and arrived at the",,,
erroneous conclusion that the income of deceased was Rs.2,43,000/- per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant harped on the circumstance",,,
that the Tribunal considered the sugarcane bills issued by the Shrigonda Sugar Factory (at Exhibits-31 and 32) on record and calculated the annual,,,
income of the deceased Popatrao. He submits that the cost of sugarcane supplied to the Sugar Factory in a particular season would not be a basis,,,
for assessment of annual income of the deceased. He explained that the deceased was agriculturist by profession and normal rule about deprivation,,,
of the income is not applicable to the cases, where the agricultural income would be income source of deceased. There were no documents on",,,
record that the deceased was having agricultural land in his name and he would get income from the yield like sugarcane, wheat, groundnut, etc.Â",,,
According to learned counsel Mr. Goyanka, the minimum notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month would be proper amount for determination of",,,
compensation towards loss sustained to the family due to accidental death of deceased Popatrao. He submits that the compensation amount in lieu,,,
of loss of supervision charges for agricultural operation is required to be considered in this case. He relied upon the ratio laid down in judicial,,,
precedents - (1)Â Â State of Harayana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4198, (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd.",,,
Vs. Charlie and another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 2157(1), (3) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others",,,
reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases, 680.",,,
Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon contends that the deceased Popatrao was agriculturist by profession. He used to cultivate cash",,,
crops like sugarcane, wheat, groundnut, onion, etc. in his agricultural land. But, owing to sudden demise of deceased Popatrao following vehicular",,,
accident, family sustained loss of income from the agricultural land.  Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate fairly conceded that there should be just",,,
and reasonable compensation payable to the claimants for the loss caused following untimely death of their family member in vehicular accident. He,,,
submits that the deceased was agriculturist, therefore, normal rule of deprivation would not be made applicable. However, it does not mean that the",,,
notional income @ Rs. 3000/- per month would be proper income for determination of compensation in this case.Â,,,
Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the expositions of law in judicial precedent in the case of - State of Hariyana and another Vs.",,,
Jasbir Kaur and others reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 484, wherein it has been observed that, even after accidental death of the",,,
deceased the land possessed by him still remain with his legal heirs. They may required to engage persons to look after the agricultural land.Â,,,
Therefore, the loss of supervision charges, etc. would be a factor to be considered for assessment of compensation in this case.  Mr. Hon learned",,,
Senior Advocate kept reliance on the legal guidelines delineated by the learned Single Judge of Karnatka High Court in the case of - G. Sharanappa,,,
and another Vs. Sri Khushidkhan and others (M.F.A.No. 25890 of 2011 decided on 12th December, 2012) ; wherein, the Karnatka High Court",,,
considered the agricultural operation and its costs, and, arrived at the conclusion that the supervision charges of Rs. 6000/- per month for agricultural",,,
land would be proper and it would be considered as loss of income of the deceased for assessment of compensation amount. Therefore, Mr. Hon,",,,
learned Senior Advocate prayed to calculate the compensation amount payable to the claimants on the basis of observations in the aforesaid judicial,,,
precedent.,,,
Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions in the light of aforesaid judicial precedents relied upon on behalf of both sides, it appears",,,
that the Tribunal has committed grave error while appreciating the bills of the sugarcane crop supplied to the Sugar Factory for assessment of annual,,,
income of the deceased. The factual aspect of the matter reflects that it would fallacious to consider that the annual income of the deceased Popatrao,,,
was Rs.2,43,000/-. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal seems completely rests on the basis of sugarcane bills issued by the Sugar Factory",,,
(Exhibits-31 and 32). It is true that the sugar cane corps were supplied to the Sugar factory on behalf of deceased Popatrao in a particular year.Â,,,
But, it does not mean on each and every year, the deceased was taking such yield for earning Rs.2,43,000/- per annum. It would preposterous and",,,
incomprehensible to appreciate that there was a loss of Rs.2,43,000/- per annum caused to claimants due to death of deceased Popatrao in vehicular",,,
accident. No expert is required to assume that the yield from agricultural land would not get affected or diminished even after death of land owner,,,
Popatrao. The agricultural land still remains in possession of the claimants being legal heirs of deceased Popatrao. At the most due to sudden,,,
death of deceased Popatrao, there may be possibility that the claimants may get engage more labourers to look after the agricultural operation. But,",,,
it does not mean that there was total loss of income from the agricultural field. The law prescribed that the normal rule about deprivation of the,,,
income is not strictly applicable to the cases, where agricultural income is the source for deceased. Â",,,
In the instant case, the deceased Popatrao was agriculturist by profession. He used to cultivate the land. He had also supplied his sugarcane",,,
crop to the Shrigonda Sugar Factory. P.W. 3 Dnyandeo Khetmalis was the Accountant of the Sugar Factory. He deposed about the facts of,,,
supply of sugarcane crops by deceased Popatrao to Sugar Factory. He produced and proved the sugarcane bills issued in the name of deceased,,,
No.,Particulars,,Amount (in Rs)
A,Total income per year,6000 X 12,"72,000/-
B,"rd
1/3 Â deductions towards personal
and living expenses","72,000 - 24,000","48,000/-
C,"Pecuniary loss after applying
multiplier of '5' as deceased wasÂ
between 70 years old","48,000 x 5","2,40,000/-
,Total compensation payable to the claimants,,"2,40,000/-
,Additional medical and hospital charges,,"2,36,981/-
,"Additional love and affection for applicants No.1 to 3 @
Rs.15,000/- each",,"45,000/-
,Additional funeral and transportation charges,,"25,000/-
,Total   .. .. .. :-,,"5,46,981/-