State of Maharashtra vs Suresh and Others

A.P. Bhangale, J.—Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. M.A. Kadu on behalf of appellant and learned Counsel Mr. S.D. Malke representing respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The present appeal is against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 214/1994 on 21st October, 2003 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and directed to pay the total compensation of Rs. 1,88,600 to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition, till the amount is fully satisfied.

The facts, which are not in dispute are that victim Sanjay Suresh Shahu aged about 19 years, who was employed as a mechanical-cum-helper in Arvind Auto Works-respondent No. 3 for monthly salary of Rs. 1200 and he had unfortunately died in motor vehicle accident on 15th September, 1993 at about 5.45 p.m. when Nilkanth Suryawanshi-respondent No. 4 drove motor vehicle belonging to the appellant on the pretext of text drive from the garage of respondent No. 3 and the deceased unfortunately came under the front wheel and died, as a result of the accident caused by truck bearing registration No. MTG-9200. The claimants filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for the award against the respondents.

The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,88,600 which according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader ought not to have been awarded, as according to him, in any event it is excessive amount of compensation and the claim awarded was sans legal evidence.

I have perused the impugned judgment and award. Prima facie it appears that while calculating the compensation, the monthly income of the victim was notionally considered as Rs. 1,200 per month. According to the claimants, victim was getting Rs. 1,200 per month as mechanic in the garage of the first respondent. Therefore, no fault is found with the calculation of the monthly income of the deceased which is average monthly income for any able-bodied adult doing the work. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in education, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation as observed in the ruling in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Co. and Another, decided By Hon''ble Supreme Court on 15th April, 2009. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. Considering the deceased was bachelor and the claimants who were dependent as also considering the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 16 was rightly applied. However, deduction towards the notional personal expenses ought to have been calculated on the basis that deceased was bachelor and he would have spent at least 50% of amount of his income for his notional personal expenses and the claimants his parents (as dependents upon him) have lost dependency of 50% from the income of the deceased son as the deceased had he been living would have continued to earn even more. That being so, I agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant that from the annual loss of dependency calculated on the basis of income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200 per month could have been Rs. 14,400 per year by deducting 50% amount towards notional personal expenses of the deceased. The basis for calculation would therefore be the sum of Rs. 7,200 x 16 = 1,15,200. Thus, the total compensation to which the claimants are entitled to, is as follows:

Therefore, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,50,200 instead of Rs. 1,88,600. Rest of the award need not be interfered with.

Hence, appeal is partly allowed with direction that the parents claimants shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,200 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. The amount, if deposited by the appellant, be paid accordingly to the claimants. Rest of the award stands confirmed except the above modification. No order as to costs.