ANITA NARENDRA PARSEKAR Vs. PAWAN HARI HARIRAM ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Gawthankar, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. P. Kakodkar appears for respondent No.2/owner of the insured vehicle. Mr. A. Kakodkar appears for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

(2.) The appellants are the claimants who challenge the judgment and award dtd. 27/3/2018 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) on the ground that the amount of compensation determined is inadequate. In addition, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed Cross Objections No.6 of 2019, contending that there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. Therefore, no liability could have been imposed on the Insurance Company.

(3.) Mr. Gawthankar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the deceased Narendra Parsekar was a Government servant aged 52 years at the time of the accident. He offers that after Narendra's demise, the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission were accepted by the Government, and the salary of Government servants was considerably increased. He submits that Narendra would have had eight years of service left, and the claimants should be compensated commensurate to this increase in pursuance of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. He submits that the family would have benefited from this increase if Narendra had been alive. Therefore, there is no reason why this aspect should not be considered for determining the just compensation.