SHALINI WD/O VITTHAL SARDAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK. Vs. JAGDEO SUKHDEO KURHADE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O SUKODA TQ. AND DIST. AKOLA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shalini Wd/O Vitthal Sardar Aged About 37 Years, Occ. Household Work.
Jagdeo Sukhdeo Kurhade Aged About 45 Years, Occ. Driver, R/O Sukoda Tq. And Dist. Akola
Click here to view full judgement.
A.S.Chandurkar, J. -
(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants seek enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in MACP No.25/2001.
One Vitthal Sardar, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 on 13/11/2000 was travelling in a jeep towards Akola. During the course of journey, a truck coming from opposite side gave a dash to the jeep. In said accident Vitthal sustained injuries and died on the spot. The appellants therefore filed proceedings under Section 166 of the said Act for grant of compensation. This claim was filed against the insurer of the truck-respondent No.3, its owner and driver as well as insurer of the jeep-respondent No.6 and its driver. After considering the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,59,500/- including no fault liability by holding both the vehicles equally responsible for causing the accident.
(2.) Shri Bharat Vora, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was taken on lower side which ultimately resulted in grant of lessor compensation. It was further urged that compensation under various conventional heads was also not granted resulting in prejudice to the case of the appellants. In support of the prayer for enhancement the learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Savita v. Bindar Singh and ors. (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 505 and judgments of this Court in Nitadevi wd/o Liladhar Sarda and ors v. National Insurance Company 2016(1) ALL MR 818 and First Appeal No.197 of 2007 (Gajanan Mahadeo Gulhane v. Bharat Trading Company and ors.) decided on 13/04/2016 .
(3.) The aforesaid submissions were opposed by Shri A. H. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri S. N. Dhanagare, learned counsel for respondent No.6. It was submitted that on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal had rightly awarded fair compensation to the appellants. In absence of any evidence with regard to the income earned by the deceased, the figures applied by the Tribunal were justified not warranting any interference in the appeal. Shri A. H. Patil, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and ors. 2006(4) ALL MR (SC) 92.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.