URMILA KAUR Vs. BAPU RAJARAM KOTHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOCTOR Bewali who had obtained doctorate in agriculture was in the faculty of the agricultural college. Dhule as Professor and Head of he department of Botany He was drawing Rs. 2,460/- per month. On 21-6-1980 when he was proceeding on scooter towards agricultural college on Dhule-Parola road, the truck belonging to Bapu Kothale and driven by Ramesh More came from behind and dashed against Dr. Bewali as a result of which Dr. Bewali suffered injuries and was immediately renoved to hospital. Inspite of amputation of Dr. Bewali's right leg which was crushed, he could not recover and died on 23-6-1980 a couple of days after the accident. Urila kaur his wife and the three children of Dr. Bewali preferred claim petition No. 42 of 1980 before the Motor Accident clais Trihunal, Dhuleand the Trubunal awarded compensation of Rs. 65,000/- against the owner, Dhule and the the Insurance Company but limited the liability of insurer to Rs. 50,00/- The claimants appeal.

(2.) AS there is no appeal or crossobjecrion filed by the owner we did not permit the earned Counsel for the owner to canvass a plea of contributory negligence. Thus the only issue that survives in this appeal is regarding compensation of daages made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal started with the hypothesis that Dr. Bewali being 41 years old had 17 years servece to which he could look forward but considering the fact that life span was about 65 years, the Tribunal assumed the multiplier of 20 years and cad to the figute of Rs. 2,88,000/- on the basis that Dr. Bewli's contribution to the fanily would have been to Rs.1,200/- per month. From this figure of Rs.2,88,000/- te Tribunal deducted one sixth on account of accelerated payment and other uncertainties of life and arrived at the figure on Rs. 2,40,000/-. From this amount a deduction of Rs. 8,000/- was made on account of payment which the widow received from the Life Insurance Corporation under the Policy taken on the life of the deceased.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the deceased was in government service it stands to reason that he would have received the amount of Provident Fund which was his own contribution and his death has made no difference in the quantum of the fund. Same is true about the gratuity which depends upon the number of years of service rendered by a Government servant. As far as the family pension is concerned, as per conditions of service, the Government servant would have been entitled to a regular pension upon superannuation ** in his own right and so was his widow entitled if the Government servant would have died after retirement. These payments could not be called pecuniary advantages arising by reason of the death of the deceased and hence we feel that the deductions of Rs. 26,000/-, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 57,960/-are not justified in law. Such a view has been taken by this Court in First Appeal No. 709 of 1982 (Smt. Padmadevi v. Kabulai) decided on 14-11-1984.