CHITRA CHINTAMAN KOLEKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 8th December, 2003, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in Claim Petition No. 755/1997 awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ only inclusive of no fault liability. The Tribunal also awarded payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded sum from the date of the application, till realization. The claim was made in the sum of Rs 6,00,000/ (Six Lakhs) before the Tribunal. After hearing the learned Advocate as well as Assistant Government Pleader representing the parties and after careful perusal of the evidence available on record at thread bare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration is:

(2.) The finding regarding liability recorded by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The fact that young Chintaman, aged about 35 years died in road accident involving the motor vehicles Motor Cycle bearing registration no. MH04W6135 and the Police Van registration no MH12F5804 is not in dispute. It is not disputed that the Police Van bearing was owned by Respondent State( Respondent no. 1) as on the date of the motor vehicle accident in the present case. Thus question which is to be answered in this appeal is, as to what is quantum of just and fair compensation, which could have been awarded to the claimants/dependents of the young victim Chintaman, who died in the motor vehicle accident at the age of 35 years.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellants made a grievance that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was utterly inadequate, as according to Mr Naik, the victim young Chintaman was only daily bread earner for the family serving in as Head Clerk in Soil Conservation Office, Wada, earning about Rs. 4326/ per month according to PW1 Chitra, who deposed as claimant and PW3 Shantaram, Assistant Superintendent in the same office where deceased had worked, who deposed before the Tribunal. Learned Advocate Mr.Naik for the appellants, therefore, contended with reference to ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 3104 as also making reference to ruling in Santosh Devi V/s National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2012 6 SCC 421, to argue that even in cases of self employed victims, increases in their income prospectively ought to be considered by the tribunal while granting reasonably just and adequate compensation.