ANANDA S/O MALLESH CHAVAN Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the claimants before the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VII at Vijayapura against judgment and award dated 13.06.2018 in MVC No.262/2014.

(2.) On 11.12.2012 at about 7.45 a.m. on Mumbai to Goa National Highway-17 at Vetal Bambarde the deceased Mallesh Gemu Chavan was travelling in the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-28/TA- 6648 and KA-28/TB-3607 from Pavasi Madeshwarvadi to Osel @ Orosa. The driver of the tractor-trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and one truck came from the opposite side and on seeing the same, the driver of the tractor-trailer lost control on the same and he dashed it to a road side tree. On account of the said impact, deceased Mallesh Gemu Chavan sustained severe injuries and he died on the spot.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and as per the chart prepared by the High Court Legal Services Committee for the year 2012, notional income fixed being Rs.6,500/- per month, the claimants are entitled to be awarded higher award under the head of loss of dependency. He also submitted that appellant Nos.1 to 4 are the minor children and appellant No.5 is the wife of deceased Mallesh Gemu Chavan and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd ., in Civil Appeal No.2705/2020 dated 30.06.2020, appellant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to be awarded under the head of loss of parental love and affection a sum of Rs.40,000/- each and to appellant No.5 a sum of Rs.40,0000/- under the head of loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the said heads and suitable enhancement is required to be made under the said heads also. He also submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 ( Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and Anr .), the order of the Tribunal discharging respondent No.2 from the entire liability is not proper and on the other hand the Tribunal ought to have directed respondent No.2 to pay entire compensation and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.1. He therefore submitted that the appeal is entitled to be allowed.