ABID HUSSAIN ABEDINI Vs. SHEIKH AHMED SHEIKH SAYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact they were put up together. Even before the hearing of the appeals started Shri Mhamane the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant filed a pursis before us which is taken on record, By this purshis Shri Mhamane has sought permission to withdraw the First Appeal No. 46 "of 1983. Such a permission is granted. In view of this withdrawal he will be entitled to refund of court fee as per rules. In First Appeal No. 47 of 1983 he has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 5000/- and has withdrawn rest of it. In First Appeal No. 48 of 1983 he has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and has withdrawn rest of the claim. In First Appeal No. 49 1983 he has sought permission to restrict his claim to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and withdrawn the rest of the claim. Permission is granted in all these first appeals as per the request made by the learned Counsel. Obviously, therefore the appellant will be entitled to refund of court fee as per the rules so far as the given up claims are concerned.

(2.) AFTER this purshis was filed, we heard the learned Counsel for both sides. As appeal Nos. 47 of 1983, 48 of 1983 and 49 of 1983 arise out of the same accident they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The only question raised in the appeals is about the quantum of compensation. In Appeal No. 47 of 1983 the appellant is claiming compensation for the death of his wife Nazarin who was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident. The learned Member of the tribunal has granted about Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. In our view the said compensation is inadequate and in any case the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- should have been granted for the loss of the wife to the appellant. In Appeal No. 40 of 1983 the appellant is claiming compensation for the agony and injuries suffered by him. The trial court has granted Rs. 26,000/- as compensation to him. To say the least this compensation is also inadequate. The appellant has lost his two sons and wife in the said accident. He was in the hospital for several months, and had incurred expenses. Therefore, in our view the claim made by the appellant in the said Appeal asking for additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- deserves to be accepted for obvious reasons. In Appeal No. 49 of 1983 the appellant is claiming compensation for the death of his son aged where 17 years. Obviously the son was coming of age where he could have definitely helped his father in his business. Even otherwise for the loss of son aged 17 years the compensation granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal is inadequate. The appellant has claimed additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on that account which also deserves to be accepted. Therefore the First Appeal No. 47 of 1983 is allowed to the extent of Rs. 5000/-, First Appeal No. 48 of 1983 is allowed to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and the First Appeal No. 49 of 1983 is allowed to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. if this amount is added to the compensation already awarded is further round up, in our opinion the appellant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,950/- on all counts that means in all the four applications.

(3.) HENCE all the three appeals are allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.