AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant-claimants and learned Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company.
The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on the point of income of the deceased. Deceased Rajesh was a bachelor, aged about 25 years. He was doing a labour work with one Mahendra Dave, earning Rs.9000/-. He succumbed to the injuries caused in a vehicular accident on 31st August 2011. The accident took place on Western Express Highway, Opposite Mantri Marble, Vile Parle at midnight. He was removing punctured tyre of the tempo. At that time an offending car came at a fast speed and gave dash from backside due to which Rajesh sustained injuries and he succumbed to those injuries. FIR is registered against driver of the car with Vile Parle Police station. Claim petition was filed against the owner of the car and the Insurance Company. It was resisted by the Insurance Company. The claimant examined one Jagdhari – being father of the deceased. He has produced necessary documents. On behalf of the insurer any witness is not examined.
The Tribunal has given a finding in respect of death of the deceased in a vehicular accident in the affirmative. There was a plea taken about the contributory negligence by the insurer but it was answered against the insurer. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. The Tribunal opined that there was no proper evidence (Para No.19). This finding requires correction. So also the Tribunal has considered the age of parents of the deceased for applying the multiplier. It finds place in Para No.21. This has to be corrected. The age of the deceased has to be considered. There is sufficient evidence to consider the age of the deceased as 25 years.
If the deceased was working as a Labourer, an amount of Rs.3000/- per month is on a lower side. I am inclined to accept the case of the claimant that he was earing Rs.9000/- per month. It was deposed by Jagdhari who is the father of the deceased. In view of that the quantum has to be enhanced. For these reasoning the appellants are entitled to compensation as per the following table:
| Income of the deceased | Rs. 9000/- |
Future Prospects (40%) (9000 X 40%) | Rs. 3600/- |
| 9000 + 3600 = 12,600/- | |
| - Personal Deductions (as he was bacherlor and survived by parents) | Rs. 6,300/- |
| Rs. 6,300/- | |
| (A) Calculation of Compensation (6,300x12x18) (considering the age the multiplier will be 18) | Rs, 13,60,800/- |
(B) Consortium for two claimants (48,000 x 2) | Rs. 96,000/- |
| (C) Loss to Estate | Rs. 18,000/- |
| (D) Funeral Expenses | Rs. 18,000/- |
| (A) + (B) +(c) +(D) | Rs. 14,92,800/- |
| - Tribunal Granted | Rs. 3,48,000/- |
| Enhanced Amount | 11, 44,800/- |
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed.
The Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.14,92,800/-.
The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.11,44,800/- (Rs. 3,48,000/- is already granted) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till realisation. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount within 8 weeks before the Tribunal.
The amount be distributed in equal proportion amongst the Appellant Nos.1 and 2.
The Appellants are entitled to enhanced amount subject to deposit of deficit Court fee.
First Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.