SHARAD GANPAT DESHMUKH Vs. KUNDA ASHOK POLADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) ON 28th May, 1990, at about 3. 30 p. m. , Ashok Polade, an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short M. S. E. B.) was driving the staff car bearing registration number M. T. W. 9347 carrying other employees of the M. S. E. B. and was proceeding to Vaitarna from Nasik Road. Near the village Vilholi, a truck bearing Registration No. M. W. N. 2117 belonging to the appellant No. 1 and being driven by the appellant No. 2 and insured with the appellant No. 3 came in the opposite direction and there was a collision between the truck and the staff car resulting in the death of Ashok Polade, the driver of the car. His widow, children and the father who are the respondents herein filed a petition bearing M. A. C. Petition No. 259 of 1990 claiming compensation from the appellants. Mr. Ramchandra Chitnis and Suresh Badgujar who were the occupants of the staff car and who were also injured filed two separate petitions for compensation with which we are not concerned in this appeal. In Petition No. 259 of 1990, the heirs of Ashok Polade claimed that the deceased was aged 41 years and drawing salary of Rs. 5000/- out of which Rs. 4000/- he was spending on the maintenance of the respondents. The respondents were totally dependent on the income of the deceased Ashok and claimed that they suffered total loss of Rs. 10,20,000/ -. However, due to incapacity to pay Court fee stamp, the respondents, restricted their claim to Rs. 4,00,000/- and interest.

(3.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) after considering the salary of Ashok and his personal expenditure held that Ashok must be contributing Rs. 2000/- per month (i. e. Rs. 24,000/- per year) for the family i. e. For the respondents. By applying the multiplier of 17 years, the Tribunal held that the total loss to the respondents was Rs. 4,08,000/ -. After awarding a further sum of Rs. 12,000/- for loss of love and affection, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the total loss was Rs. 4,20,000/ -. These computations are not disputed in this appeal by learned Counsel for the appellants. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck i. e. the appellant No. 2 herein and Ashok the deceased himself were both negligent. On account of the finding of composite negligence, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the amount and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. Learned Counsel for the respondents has not challenged the finding of composite (contributory) negligence.