AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SR. NO.,ISSUES
1),"Do the petitioners prove that due to rash and negligent driving of the
truck bearing No.MPÂ09/DÂ1001 an accident took place and Prakas
Bhaskar Potdar sustained injuries and died?
2),"Does the insurance company prove that there was breach of the
policy?
3),"Does the insurance company prove that the deceased who was driving
the Hero Honda bearing No.MH27/NÂ9834 was also responsible for
the accident?
4),"Do the petitioners prove that they are entitled to compensation, if yes,
of what amount and from whom?
5),"What should be the apportionment of the compensation amount,
between the petitioners, if it is granted?
deduced the principles as regards the applicability of the multiplier, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to the claimants in the appeal which is pending. Undoubtedly this is an appeal filed by Insurance",
Company. None the less even in an appeal which has been filed by Insurance Company, there is no reason to deny claimants the benefit of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision so that claimants receive just and",
fair compensation.,
Shri Kadu, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was receiving net salary of Rs.17,690/Â. According to him, the",
Tribunal should not have deducted provident fund contribution, Cooperative Society and cycle/motorcycle. Adv./H.B.A. from the gross salary. Learned counsel Mrs.Naik submits that in the appeal filed by the",
Insurance Company the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was receiving net salary of Rs.17,690/Â cannot be disturbed. I am however of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in",
deducting the amount towards provident fund, cooperative society and motorcycle advance to HBA while calculating the net salary for the purpose of income. As indicated earlier, the learned counsel for the",
appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra) to contend that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company the claimants will not be entitled to seek,
enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground in the absence of crossÂappeal or crossobjection. In my opinion, the ground regarding deduction towards provident fund, cooperative society and",
cycle/motorcycle advanceÂHBA is not a new ground.,
The basis of calculation of compensation has remained unchanged. It is only that the monthly income has increased as the Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amounts mentioned above under the,
heads of deductions. Therefore, following the mandate of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that the court must endeavour to arrive at a figure of “just compensationâ€, this court has",
rendered findings towards further amounts payable by the appellantInsurance Company to the respondents/claimants even in the absence of crossÂappeal or crossÂobjection filed by them. According to me,",
after deducting the income tax and professional tax from the gross salary, the income will have to be considered as Rs.23,982/Â per month.",
As regards the aspect of number of dependents I am of the opinion that in the present case the respondent No.1Âwife, the respondent No.5Âmother aged 80 years and son aged 23 years of the deceased",
are to be regarded as dependents. However, I see no reason to regard the respondent No.2 Nilesh aged 30 years and respondent No.3 Shailesh aged 27 years as dependents.",
The learned counsel for the claimants next contended that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra) the claimants would be entitled for future prospects.,
However, as admittedly the deceased was to retire upon completion of 58 years of age and he had only 3 months of service left on the date of the accident, in my opinion, this is not a fit case where benefit of",
enhancement of the salary should be granted.,
In this view of the matter, the amount of compensation payable to the respondents/claimants is worked out which is as follows:Â",
The net income is Rs.23,982/Â per month.",
The annual income comes to Rs.2,87,784/Â.",
1/3rd of the annual income comes to Rs.95,928/Â.",
After deducting the amount of Rs.95,928/Â from the annual income of Rs.2,87,784/Â, the amount comes to Rs.1,91,856/Â. Applying the multiplier of 9 to the amount of Rs.1,91,856/Â the total amount comes to",
Rs.17,26,704/Â.",
As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) by adding Rs.70,000/Â towards funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs.17,96,704/Â.",
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,39,128/Â. The increased amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.6,57,576/Â.",
Hence, the following order:Â",
(i) As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.11,39,128/Â increased amount of compensation payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants shall be Rs.6,57,576/Â.",
(ii) The said increased amount of compensation shall also carry interest as determined by the Tribunal.,
(iii) The balance amount of compensation due and payable be deposited by the appellant in this court within a period of 3 months from today.,
(iv) The respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are at liberty to withdraw the said amount so deposited. Needless to mention the claimants are also allowed to withdraw the amount which is already deposited/invested.,
Claimants to pay deficit court fees on increased amount of compensation,
(v) Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.,