Rukhmanbai More & Anr. vs Nasar Khan & Ors.

Original Claimants hereby takes exception to judgment and award passed by MACT, Aurangabad in MACP No. 80/2012, primarily dissatisfied by quantum of compensation awarded.

On 11.12.2011 when deceased Rahul Sitaram More was proceeding on motorcycle bearing no. MH-05-A-8717 towards Kannad, when he reached near the field of Raosaheb Nagre situated at village Tapargaon, one truck bearing no. HR-74-6466 came in very high and excessive speed and gave dash to the motorcycle. Due to fatal injuries therein, Rahul succumbed and, therefore, claimants being his heirs, set up accident claim by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against Respondent.

Above claim was contested by Insurance Company and finally, by judgment and order dated 20.07.2016, learned Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,16,000/- with 9% p.a. rate of interest.

Dissatisfied by the non consideration monthly income to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, instant appeal has been pressed into service.

Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submitted that, there is no dispute that deceased Rahul died in road traffic accident and that there is challenge that offending truck was rash and negligent. He pointed out that, deceased who was 20 years of age, has completed ITI Course as ell as MS-CIT i.e. computer course and was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. That, learned Tribunal has failed to consider the educational qualification and acquisitions of the deceased. That, learned Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects and considered the monthly income of deceased only to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-. That, even filial consortium ought to have been paid at Rs. 40,000/- per claimant in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and Ors, 2018 ALL SCR 2001.

Learned counsel for insurance company opposed and refuted above submissions and justified the findings and conclusion reached by Tribunal.

After considering above submissions, here primarily appeal is filed on the count of non consideration of monthly income of deceased. As regards to monthly income of the deceased is concerned, though it is claim by claimant that deceased was doing work of plumber and was earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- p.m., claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- p.m.

Learned Tribunal has taken into account the educational qualifications and acquisitions of deceased that there is document showing that deceased has completed training course of sanitary fitting and plumbing from I.T.I. Kannad and has also undergone preparatory program conducted by Y.C.M. Open University, Nashik. Further, learned Tribunal has also observed in paragraph 21 of the judgment and award that it is proved that deceased was a skilled worker, however, has consider notional income of Rs. 4,500/- in those time. Resultantly, this Court is of the consider opinion that, the deceased as was skilled worker, he might have definitely earned around Rs.5,500/- per month.

As far as non grant of future prospects and filial consortium are concerned, law to that extent is fairly settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that future prospects are also required to be considered and it should be granted @ 40% if the deceased is aged below 40 years. Admittedly, deceased was aged about 20 years, hence, 40% addition needs to be given to the deceased. As far as the amount of consortium is concerned, in view of the judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), consortium Rs.40,000/- towards per dependent needs to be allowed and it is accordingly granted.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for following compensation:

In the result, following order is passed: