RAJASHREE Vs. BHIMJI VANAJI GAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants for enhancement in the compensation amount granted under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1035/2004 by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule on 1/7/2008. The amount that was claimed as compensation was Rs.8.5 Crores, whereas amount that was awarded as compensation to the claimants was Rs.11,05,432.00 together with interest.

(2.) The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Rajesh Bhaidas Patil. Original claimant No.1 is widow, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are children, claimant Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. Deceased along with his cousin brother-in-law Harshdeep and driver Tukaram Bhil were coming to Dhule in a newly purchased car bearing temporary registration No.MH-12/TC-152 on 3/9/2004. Deceased was owner of the car and driver Tukaram was driving it. When they reached near a bridge in village Rahuri and passed the bridge, a truck bearing No.MH-18/M-552 came from opposite direction in a high speed and dashed to the car, as a result of which there was instantaneous death of Rajesh, Harshdeep and Tukaram. It is contended that Rajesh was a 31 years old young person working as registered Government Contractor and was carrying out business at Amalner in Jalgaon. His limit to take contracts was Rs.7.00 Crores. He was an income tax payer. Claimants have given the table of the income tax paid in the petition and it is submitted that as a contractor deceased was in need of various vehicles like tractors, hot mix machine, dumper etc. which he himself was owning. He was also in the line of construction of new buildings. Deceased also constructed schools and number of roads in his lifetime. His net profit was increasing. He had the capacity to earn net income up to Rs.1.00 Crore in future. However, by taking Rs.50,00,000.00 as his basic income they have made the calculation and claimed compensation of Rs.8.5 Crores.

(3.) Original respondent No.1, who is the driver and owner of the Truck did not file written statement, but the vehicle i.e. the truck was insured with respondent No.2 and, therefore, respondent No.2 filed say-cum-written statement at Exh.20. All the allegations in the petition were denied specifically. It was denied that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. It was alleged that the accident was the result of sole negligence on the part of the car driver as he was overtaking another vehicle and in that process came in wrong side before giving dash to the truck. Contentions in respect of age, income, capacity to earn, dependency of the claimants etc. have been specifically denied.