BOMBAY TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. HARIRAM @ BAPU BALKRISHNA ANEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane on 12/6/1996 thereby partly allowing Motor Accident Claim Application No. 400 of 1990.

(2.) So far as the appeal of the Insurance company is concerned, the same is required to be considered only on limited grounds available under Section 149(2) of the Act as has been held by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. 524] [(2003) 3 SCC 524]. Their Lordships in para 4 of the said judgment stated thus,

(3.) The factum of incident and the involvement of the appellant no.1 s vehicle has not been disputed by Mr.Datar, who confined his arguments only to the extent of the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased. I have gone through the R & P and the purported Partnership Deed between the Claimant No.2 and the deceased was not registered and, therefore, whether the said Partnership Deed was in existence prior to the date of incident is doubtful. The Claimant No.1 in his depositions before the Tribunal had stated that the deceased was working since January 1989 as Production In-charge of Shivshakti Oil Industries run by the said Claimant and the said firm was manufacturing coconut oil. He further stated that Sanjay was earning about Rs.2000/- per month by way of his salary. However, no specific document was brought on record to support the contentions that M/s. Shivshakti Oil Industries was paying the salary of Rs.2000/- per month to Sanjay. Mr.Datar, therefore, relied upon a judgment of this Court (DB) in the case of Madhav Sakharam Shilotri and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [1997 ACJ 857] and submitted that on the basis of the age of the deceased and the fact that he was a student of B.Com. some guess work to determine the monthly income of the deceased would be made, but at the same time his income at Rs.2400/- fixed by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. In the case of Madhav, the deceased was of the age of 19 years and was a student of Engineering and Technology College. This court observed that he would have earned at least Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- per month on completion of the said course. In the instant case, the deceased would have completed B.Com. in another two years period and certainly would have earned at least Rs.2000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that income assessed by the Tribunal is reasonable and should not be disturbed. As noted earlier, the documents on record do not support the assessment of the Tribunal to fix income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- per month and I am of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased would be safely fixed at Rs.2000/- per month.