LAURINDA GOMES Vs. JANU HARI GAUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A.R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the appellants together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs. 1,81,163/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid by order dated 27.06.2002.

(2.) Upon being served with the summons, the respondent No. 2 filed cross objection challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has refused compensation on the basis that the business income of the deceased of running of a bar on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced that such bar was run by the deceased. The learned counsel further pointed out that in the deposition of AW 1, it is categorically stated that the deceased was running a bar during night time though during the day he was carrying children from the Village to Sharada Mandir school at Panaji city. The learned counsel further pointed out that the deceased was carrying about 14 children to the school and collecting a sum of Rs. 400/- per child towards such travelling expenses inclusive of snacks or food items provided to them during interval. The learned counsel thereafter pointed out that the appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. to produce additional evidence to produce the excise licence issued in favour of the appellant No. 1. The learned counsel further pointed out that this material could not be adduced during the course of trial of the claim petition considering that the appellant No. 1 was a widow and the other appellants were minor at the relevant time. The learned counsel further pointed out that the minor children have been deprived of their father and as such the Tribunal was not justified to fix the compensation on the assumption that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3500/- per month. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the multiplier as 11 though according to him considering the age of the deceased such multiplier ought to have been 13. The learned counsel further pointed out that considering that besides the appellant No. 1, the deceased had three minor children in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121, the personal expenses to be deducted ought to have been 25% as the deceased has left four dependents. The learned counsel further pointed out that even the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the above appeal by judgment dated 23.08.2013 has accepted the said contention though the judgment was recalled as the respondents contended that they were not heard at the time of the disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of loss of consortium of Rs. 15,000/- which ought to have been Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 54. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal also ought to have given compensation on account of future prospects which the Tribunal has erroneously refused to the appellants. The learned counsel further pointed out that the funeral expenses in terms of the said judgment of the Apex Court are to be fixed at Rs. 25,000/- and not Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously fixed the compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs. 3500/- when such compensation should have been fixed at the minimum sum of Rs. 6000/- per month. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Minu Rout and Another V/s Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others, 2013 10 SCC 695 has held that the salary of a driver can be accepted to be Rs. 6000/- per month. The learned counsel as such points out that the judgment of the Tribunal Be modified and the amount be enhanced as claimed by the appellants.