HEMA Vs. SANTOSHI SHIVAJI DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants in MVC 1606/2010 on the file of the MACT-XII, Bijapur dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in the Judgment and award dated 29.3.2012 have presented this appeal. Claimants none other than the widow, two minor children being son and daughter and mother of one Umesh Survase, aged 34, as on 21.5.2010, the date of death having succumbed to grievous injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.5.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. while riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-45/4028 proceeding from Polytechnic College to Maddi Vasti at Solapur city while near Dayanand College on the road leading to Samrat Chowk at Bijapur, due to high speed and rash and negligent manner of riding the motor cycle which dashed against the road divider. Umesh Survase when shifted to a hospital at Solapur, despite treatment, succumbed to injuries on 21.5.2010, the cause of action for the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'Act' registered as MVC 1606/10, arraigning as respondents, the insured and the insurer of the offending motorcycle. The claim was opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents denying the accident and death. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the MACT framed three issues, the first of which is over proof of accident and allegation of attributing actionable negligence on the rider of the motorcycle. The first claimant was examined as PW-1 and three other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and marked 13 documents as Exs. P1 to P13, while for the respondents none were examined except marking the Insurance Policy as Ex. R1.

(2.) MACT having regard to the material on record and evidence, both oral and documentary returned a finding in the affirmative over issue No. 1 attributing actionable negligence to the rider of the motorcycle. As regards the quantum of compensation, the MACT noticed that the deceased was serving as an Attender in the Govt. Polytechnic college drawing salary of Rs. 12,867/- p.m. and accepted as credible evidence the pay slip for the month of April, 2010, Ex. P9 and after deducting Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, reckoned Rs. 1,51,884/- as the annual income of the deceased and applying multiplier '15' for age 36 arrived at Rs. 22,78,260/-. The MACT deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs. 7,59,420/- towards future prospects added 50% of Rs. 7,59,420/- i.e. Rs. 3,79,710/- (Rs. 7,59,420 + Rs. 3,79,710) to award Rs. 11,39,130/- towards loss of dependency, to which was added Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium; Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses being an inpatient in Markandeya hospital from 15.4.2010 to 20.5.2010, tolling to Rs. 12,04,130/- together with interest at 6% p.a.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the MACT fell in error in reckoning Rs. 12,857/- as monthly salary of the deceased while Ex. P9 salary slip discloses that the deceased was paid Rs. 12,907/- for the month of April, 2010 and Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, which when deducted the monthly income is Rs. 12,707/-. It is further submitted that and regard being had to the fact that deceased was aged 36 was entitled to addition of 50% of his salary towards loss of future prospects and as the deceased left behind four dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 1/4th and applying multiplier '15', the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 25,73,167.50. Learned counsel in addition submits that the MACT fell in error in not awarding adequate compensation towards loss of love and affection and transportation of the body from Solapur to Bijapur a distance of 100 kms by road. In addition, it is submitted that since the deceased lived for seven days after the accident and succumbed to injuries despite treatment at Markandeya hospital in Solapur, is entitled to, in the least, Rs. 25,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' being under the shadow of death. Lastly it is submitted that the MACT ought to have awarded compensation towards loss to estate.