MOHAN PARSHURAM BENDRIKAR Vs. UJWALA SAMBHAJI WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 30th August 2011, the appellants (claimants) are before this Court. The Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.11,39,752/- with proportionate costs in favour of the claimants i.e. father and mother of deceased Nilesh who succumbed to the accident on 15th January 2008 involving a vehicle of the respondent no.1 which was insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, the defendant no.2. The Tribunal recorded a finding that Nilesh died in an accident in which the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was registered. It also recorded that the claimants had proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Recording its reasons in great detail about the amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled, the claim petition was partly allowed.

(2.) The applicant questioned the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.3 i.e. the compensation quantified by the Tribunal and had preferred the present Appeal. The Appeal is staked on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the claim of Rs.82,10,000/- as claimed by the applicants when it was satisfied that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Another substantial ground which the Appeal raises is that the deceased was a medical graduate and was on the verge of completion of his post graduation (Diploma) and if the accident in question would not have occurred, he was on the verge of being conferred with DCH Degree, with bright chances of being recruited as an Assistant Teacher and would have been entitled for a regular salary of Rs.39,680/- at the basic rate. If this contingency was not acceptable, the deceased would have been entitled for a stipend admissible to a junior resident-I @ Rs.27,727/-. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal of 13 has also been assailed and instead it is the submission that considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied.

(3.) With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, I have perused the Memorandum of Appeal and the supporting documents on which the appellant has placed reliance. The deceased Nilesh was travelling in Vehicle No. MH-10-AG-1652. The said vehicle dashed against a pole and thereafter hit one tree and the FIR record that the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident. The post-mortem report divulge that the death of Nilesh was due to shock due to head injury.