Sau. Susheelabai vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

. Heard Mr. C. A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S. R. Charpe, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. None appeared for the Respondent No.3, though served.

The present Appeal is filed by the original Claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola vide Judgment dated 27/1/2010 in MACP No.113/2008 for enhancement of compensation.

In the present Appeal, the Appellants/Claimants are the parents of the deceased. According to them, the deceased Sujit Mahadeo Solanke, on 11/2/2008 at 9.00 p.m. was proceeding from Yavatmal to Amravati by ST Bus. When the ST Bus reached near village Dhumnapur on Yavatmal-Amravati road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of ST Bus i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, the said Bus dashed with the tree. In the said accident Sujit succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that at the time of death Sujit was BAMS Doctor and just started service as the Medical Officer. According to them, he was on probation and getting Rs.6000/- per month. Hence, they claimed the total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in view of death of their son in motor accident.

Before the Tribunal, present Appellants established the fact that he was earning Rs.6000/- per month and was BAMS student. It is also proved that he was recently appointed as the Medical Officer and also having a private practice as the Medical Officer.

In the light of evidence which was brought on record, the learned Tribunal though considered his income at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month, awarded only Rs.1,95,000/-. According to them, in view of the settled principles of law, and more particularly, in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company V/s Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, while determining the compensation of the deceased, the Court should award the compensation towards the future prospects and other conventional heads which are necessary for determining just and proper compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has strongly opposed the present Appeal. According to him, before the learned Tribunal, the Respondents have denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased. In the accident, driver of the ST Bus was not at fault as alleged. The Appellants failed to prove their case. The learned Tribunal, by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the matter and relevant law applicable at the time of deciding application, rightly accessed compensation in the matter. The grounds, on which Appellants are seeking enhancement, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the present Appeal, it is admitted fact that death of deceased was caused due to road accident. It is also not disputed that the Bus which was run by the Respondent No.1/MSRTC was involved in the accident. It is established by the Appellants before the Tribunal that the deceased was qualified as BAMS and was appointed as Medical Officer at the Health Department in Zilla Parishad, Amravati. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that the deceased was not earning Rs.6000/- per month. So also the perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that there is no consideration to the various conventional heads which are required to be considered while determining the compensation in the death claim.

It is well settled position of law that proceeding of First Appeal are continuation of proceeding of trial court. Therefore, the first Appellate Court can consider the subsequent legal position as well as entitlement of Appellants at the time of deciding Appeal. So also in motor accident cases, Claimants are always entitled for just compensation.

In view of above, I am of the opinion that the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation by treating his monthly salary at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month. Hence, the Appellants are entitled for compensation as under :

In view of above, the Appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,16,400/- along with interest as determined by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.