AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The claimants-respondents 1 and 2 though served, have remained absent. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company praying for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.
Sharad, S/o. Sitaram Gavhane, died in the accident that occurred on 2.11.2010; he was aged about 29 years at the time of accident; he was working as Taluka Agriculture Officer at Beed, Maharashtra State and getting monthly salary of Rs. 17,500/-; he was a bachelor at the time of his death. Tribunal, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 32,74,000/-.
As aforementioned, the Insurance Company is aggrieved by the higher compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Smt. Preeti Melkundi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal at Bijapur did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the claimants, inasmuch as the accident has occurred within the jurisdiction of District Court, Beed, Maharashtra State and not within the jurisdiction of District Court at Bijapur and therefore, the MACT, Bijapur should not have entertained the claim petition. She further submits that the Tribunal instead of deducting 50% amount towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death, has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal also ought to have taken age of the youngest of the parents while quantifying the compensation under the head of ''loss of dependency'' by applying proper multiplier. But the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the age of the deceased while adopting the multiplier.
The first contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that Tribunal at Bijapur did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, cannot be accepted.
It is by now well settled that claim petitions can be filed by the claimants at their places of residence by producing the relevant records. In the matter on hand, the claimants are from Bijapur Town and therefore they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal at Bijapur. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly entertained the claim petition. However, the appellant''s counsel is justified in arguing that 50% of the amount should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the age of the youngest of the parents should have been taken into consideration while calculating the compensation under the head of ''loss of dependency'' by applying proper multiplier.
Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. Parents are the only two legal representatives/dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was getting net salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. 50% of the actual salary needs to be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 24,000/- per month. Out of the said amount, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor, which comes to Rs. 12,000/- per month. The age of the youngest of the parents is 47 years. Thus, the proper multiplier to be adopted is ''13''.
Based on the aforesaid facts and figures, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 18,72,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to the same, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection, transportation charges and funeral expenses, etc. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 19,22,000/-. Accordingly, the following order is made:--
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 32,74,000/- to Rs. 19,22,000/-. Out of the total compensation of Rs. 19,22,000/-, an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-, i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/- (each), which shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in any of the Nationalized Bank in the name of each of the two claimants. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the monthly interest accrued on the aforesaid amount. The remaining amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants in equal proportions. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
Amount in deposit if any before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Appeal is partly allowed.