BHAGWAT NAMDEV DUNDE Vs. DINESH KANTILAL BEDMUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are parents and minor brother and sister of the deceased Gajanan, aged 21 years, who died in accident on 28.10.2013. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jalgaon by judgment dt. 11.01.2016 in MACP No. 343/2013, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,000/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Still, the claimants expect higher compensation and they have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Shri. M. M. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the appellants argued that, the deceased was aged 21 years and was getting gross salary of Rs. 6045/. The Tribunal erred in taking his salary at Rs. 5,000/ by wrongly considering the deductions. The Tribunal awarded future prospects at the rate of 30%. Those should have been awarded at the rate of 50%, as per the law prevailing then, but, now in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 AIR(SC) 5157 (Bench of 5 Judges), the future prospects should be quantified at 40% with multiplier of 18 and there should be proportionate enhancement. He fairly conceded that, as per Pranay Sethi's case , the compensation under conventional heads should be Rs. 30,000/ only. He submitted that, claimant Nos.3 and 4 were aged 17 and 15 years and were dependants on the deceased. They should be taken into consideration while deducting the amount towards personal expenses. It should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Shri. Gatne for respondent No. 2 submitted that, the deceased was working as a daily labourer. The employer examined by the claimants have given admission to that effect. He was getting Rs. 242/ per day. Therefore, he cannot be treated as an employee with fixed salary so as to grant him enhancement under the head of future prospects. He also relied on various judgments to submit that the conveyance allowance and other benefits, which do not go to the family, should not be taken as part of the salary. He argued that, in case of person having parents, normally his brother and sister who are dependant on his father cannot be said to be dependants on the deceased and they cannot be counted for determining the share for deduction of personal expenses. The rulings cited by both the parties shall be considered in due course.