STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJANI PRABHAKAR BHOIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the Appeal and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. The Respondents are the claimants in a Claim Petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On 27th June, 1981, at about 7 a.m., the deceased Prabhakar was plying his bicycle. His minor son Rajesh and minor daughter Jyoti were on his bicycle. He was on the way to drop his children to their school. When he was proceeding by Thane-Belapur Road, between the village Vitawa and Kalva, a bus came from the opposite direction. The bus was going from the North to South. The front right side bumper and head light of the bus gave a dash to the bicycle driven by Prabhakar. As a result of the impact, the deceased Prabhakar lost his balance and came under the wheels of the bus and died on the spot. The bus was owned by the 5th Respondent Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corporation which was insured with the Director of Insurance of the State Government. The 5th Respondent filed a Written Statement and contested the claim. It was contended that when the driver of the bus noticed that one cyclist tried to take turn in front of the bus, he applied breaks. The road was slippery and the cyclist fell down from his bicycle. As a result of the slippery condition of the road, the bus swerved and the deceased fell down and that is how the deceased came under the wheels of the bus. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) THE learned AGP submitted that the fact that the deceased Prabhakar was negligent is clear from the admitted position that he was carrying his two minor children at the same time by his bicycle. She submitted that in any event, the deceased contributed to the accident. She submitted that though there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning overtime of Rs.200/- per month and was having additional income of Rs.300/- per month from a parttime job, the said amount has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while calculating the multiplicand. She, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive and the award is erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st to 4 Respondents supported the impugned award.

(3.) NOW turning to the quantum of compensation, it has come on record that the deceased was employed by J.K. Chemicals Limited from March, 1970 and his total monthly pay was Rs.995.40 paise. The age of the deceased was undisputedly 36 to 37 years at the time of accident. The learned AGP is right in criticizing the Tribunal for taking into account the sum of Rs.200/- per month of account of overtime charges in absence of any evidence in that behalf. Though the witness Narayan Koli was examined, who stated that the deceased was doing a part-time job with him, in the cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had not brought the books of account from January, 1981 showing that the deceased was paid an amount of Rs.300/- per month. In the examination-in-chief, the witness admitted that he was maintaining the accounts. Thus, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.995.40 paise which is approximately Rs.1,000/-. The deceased was in the employment of JK Chemicals Limited from 1970 onwards. Thus, the deceased was in the employment for sufficiently a long time till his death. So far as the computation of multiplicand is concerned, now the law has been crystallized by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., ((2009) 6 SCC 121). In the case in hand, the deceased was in the permanent employment in more than 10 years prior to the accident. Therefore, 50% of the salary will have to be added towards the future prospects of the increase in the income. Thus, the income for the purposes of calculating multiplicand will have to be taken as Rs.1,500/- per month. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the 1/4th deduction will have to be made on account of personal expenditure of the deceased as the number of dependent is four. The Multiplier of 15 will have to be applied as per the aforesaid decision. Instead of making 1/4th deduction, even if 1/3rd deduction is made, the dependency comes to Rs.1,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation payable will be Rs.12,000/- x 15 = 1,80,000/- which is the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of consortium etc. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- is reasonable.