VINCENTINA PAULINA DSOUZA, AGED 46 YEARS, WIDOW, WIFE OF LATE CASIANO ROBERT DSOUZA, R/O. OF NAVELCAR ESTATE, BLOCK F-3, BAIGUINIM, OLD GOA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR P. (DRIVER), S/O. RARICHAKUTTY, R/O. PONGILODI - HOUSE, DISMISSED VIA ATHOLI CULICAT, POST THALKULATHUR, KERALA AND ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-149
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 13,2017

Vincentina Paulina Dsouza, Aged 46 Years, Widow, Wife Of Late Casiano Robert Dsouza, R/O. Of Navelcar Estate, Block F-3, Baiguinim, Old Goa Appellant
VERSUS
Sunil Kumar P. (Driver), S/O. Rarichakutty, R/O. Pongilodi - House, Dismissed Via Atholi Culicat, Post Thalkulathur, Kerala And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, J. - (1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the original claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12/07/2007 pursuant to which the then learned Presiding Officer of the MACT had partly allowed the petition holding the appellant entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,76,300/- and holding the respondents liable to pay the amount to the appellant with interest and costs. The parties would be referred to in their status before the Trial Court for brevity's sake hereinafter.
(2.) The claimant challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to grasp the true scope and dimension of her case and thus erred in awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.1,27,500/- on the death of her son aged 19 years. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was a young apprentice steward employed with the Indian Resort Hotels Limited at Fort Aguada Beach Resort, Sinquerim-Goa and had good future prospects of earning a good salary from time to time. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that on completion of the training he would have been absorbed in permanent service with the minimum monthly salary of Rs.5,500/-. The Tribunal erred in not considering the immediate higher earning prospects on completion of the training and that he would earn much more in a five star hotel being Fort Aquada Beach Resort. The impugned judgment and award was not in consonance with the law in awarding compensation in fatal motor accident and therefore justified interference in an appeal.
(3.) Shri E. Afonso, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased son of the appellant was 19 years 6 months old and was employed with Fort Aguada as an apprentice and drawing a stipend of Rs.850/- per month. He had passed his 12th standard and Diploma in Food and Beverages and was registered with Fort Aguada. He had every chance of earning an additional income of Rs.5,000/-. He adverted to the evidence on record and submitted that the learned MACT did not even consider the notional income and ignored the fact that the deceased was a trainee/apprentice in a Five Star Hotel and had chances of earning a salary of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. He relied in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (6) SCC 121], Munna Lal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. [(2015) 6 SCC 347], Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 54], Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC 421] and Sayed Sadiq and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2014) 4 SCC 735].;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.