Manisha W/o. Shashikant Mokashi & Ors. vs Babu S/o. Bhanudas Umbre & Anr.

Original claimants, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.11.2019, passed by learned District Judge – 6 and Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Beed (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MACP No. 155/2018, whereby partly allowed the claim, have preferred this appeal.

The facts, in brief, are as follows:

On 21.04.2018, deceased Shashikant was going on a morning walk from Hanmant Pimpri to Kaij Road. At about 6:30 am to 07:00 am near the field of Rameshwar Chandanshiv, one Indica Car bearing No. MH-14/P-0879 (for short, ‘the Car’) came from the backside in a rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to Shashikant. Due to which he fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to PHC Chicholimali, where he was declared dead. Accordingly, an offence was registered vide Crime No. 148/2018 at the Kaij Police Station.

Respondent no. 1 is the owner of the Car, and the Car was insured with respondent no. 2 – Insurance Company.

The deceased was 38 years old and running a hotel at Hanumant Pimpri under the name and style of Swami Samarth Hotel, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Claimants are the widow, children and mother of the deceased. They were depending on him. Due to the accident, they suffered a lot. As such, they filed the claim petition.

Respondent no. 1 filed the written statement and admitted the happening of the accident. He also contended that the Car is insured with respondent no. 2 – Insurance Company.

Respondent no. 2 filed a written statement and denied the content in the petition. It is contended that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid driving license and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, they urged dismissal of the claim against them.

Based on the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. Pursuant to the issues, the claimants examined three witnesses and produced and proved the documents. None of the respondents adduced any evidence in support of their defence. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the petition. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and respondent no. 2 / Insurance Company. None appears for the respondent no. 1, though served.

Learned Advocate for the appellants has emphasised only on the point that the learned Tribunal had not considered the facts that the deceased was running a hotel business and earning Rs. 15,000/-. However, erred in holding that the deceased’s notional income was Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of P.W. 1, i.e., claimant no. 1 – Manisha, and two other witnesses, namely P.W. 2 – Kisan and P.W. 3 – Bhausaheb, in their proper perspective, who have proved that the deceased was running the hotel business. However, without considering their testimony, the learned Tribunal erred in calculating the notional income to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per month; therefore, he urged that the said notional income be considered at Rs. 12,000/- per month.

To buttress his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nur Ahamed Abdulsab Kanavi Versus Abdul Munaf and Others, 2025 (2) JT 363, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “in absence of any material it would be improper to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per month” and, therefore, he submitted that in the year 2014, the accident occurred in the said matter and in the present case, the accident was happened in the year 2018. Therefore, he urged that the notional income be considered at Rs. 12,000/- per month and, accordingly, prayed for the allowance of the appeal.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 strenuously argued that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased was running the hotel or earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, and no interference is required in it. He further submitted that no documents have been produced on record to show that the deceased was running the hotel and, therefore, his notional income of Rs. 5,000/- per month has rightly been considered by the learned Tribunal. The notification dated 24.02.2015, points out to him. It was put to him that, pursuant to the notification, the minimum rates of wages for unskilled labourers were Rs. 8,500/-, for semi-skilled labourers Rs. 10,000/-, and for skilled labourers Rs. 11,000/- for zone 3, and what he wants to say about it. He submitted that he is unaware of the said notification. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

Having heard the rival contentions, the short but crucial points that arise are as follows:

I have perused the pleadings and evidence on record. At the outset, it appears that the appellants in the petition have categorically asserted that the deceased was running the hotel business and earned Rs. 15,000/- per month, a claim denied by respondent no. 2 in the written statement. It further appears that P.W. 1 - Manisha, P.W. 2 - Kisan, and P.W. 3 – Bhausaheb have categorically deposed that the deceased was engaged in a hotel business. The testimony of P.W. 2 - Kisan and P.W. 3 - Bhausaheb was not explicitly denied during their cross-examination; therefore, the assertion that the deceased was running a hotel business remained unchallenged. A vague suggestion was put to him that they were deposing incorrectly on the say of the claimants. Thus, considering the testimony of P.W. 1- Manisha, P.W. 2 - Kisan and P.W. 3 - Bhausaheb, I have no hesitation in holding that the deceased was running the hotel business.

The next question that arises is how much his income from the said business was. Undisputedly, the claimants have not produced any documents on record in support of their contention, and, therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the notional income as the income of the deceased. I would like to mention that the Government of Maharashtra has issued a notification dated 24.02.2015, pursuant to which it has categorised zones 1, 2, and 3. Even assuming the deceased was residing in Zone 3, the Government of Maharashtra, by this notification, fixed the minimum rates of wages for skilled labourers at Rs. 11,000/-, semi-skilled labourers at Rs. 10,000/-, and unskilled labourers at Rs. 8,500/-. However, the deceased was engaged in the hotel business and, therefore, cannot be classified as a labourer. Thus, in light of the notification and dependency of the claimants on him, his notional income must be taken into account.

Apart from that, the intent of the legislature to enact the beneficial legislation with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine, as well as accumulated effect of the above discussion, I deem it appropriate not to interfere with the impugned judgment and order for an amount of Rs. 10,15,000/- granted over the entitlement of the claim.

Perused the impugned judgment and award. In paragraph no. 15, leaned Tribunal has dealt with the income of the deceased and observed that claimants have not produced any documentary evidence, such as Shop Act licence, etc. nor examined any employee working in that hotel and, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, the evidence of the claimants and other witnesses has not relied by the Tribunal and considered the deceased as unskilled person and, therefore, held that in the year 2018, he can earn at least Rs. 5,000/-per month for performing labour work. However, the finding appears to be incorrect and inconsistent with the Government of Maharashtra's notification; therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.

On the contrary, based on observations made in Nur Ahamad (supra), in the absence of any material, to discard the oral evidence of P.W. 1 - wife of the deceased, the Court held that it would be appropriate to fix the monthly income by the claimant appellant therein as Rs. 10,000/-

Thus, considering the above discussion and evidence on record as well as notification of the Government of Maharashtra, in my view, it would be appropriate to consider the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month and therefore, I answer point no. (i) in the negative and point no. (ii) in the affirmative and, therefore, to that extent, interference is required in the impugned judgment and award.

It also appears that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, to that extent, the award is liable to be modified. Needless to clarify that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 8%. Needless to clarify that the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation awarded by it shall remain as it is. The 6% interest applies only to the enhanced compensation amount.

As a result, having considered the above discussion and in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), it would be appropriate to determine the compensation to which the claimants are entitled, as under :

As a result, the First Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award are hereby modified to the extent of compensation as calculated above. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 21,19,900/-, including no-fault liability. It is needless to clarify that if the amount has already been paid to the claimants, it should be adjusted.

The amount of enhanced compensation is to be apportioned as under :