SHALIGRAM RAMAJI DHEKALE Vs. RAVINDRA MANIKRAO KHADSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal questions correctness and legality of judgment and award dated 26.3.2008 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 998 of 2004 whereby the petition was allowed partly in the sum of Rs. 1,78,320/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 13.8.2004 till realization. Respondents no. 1 and 3, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle viz. Truck No. MH31/M-5279 were held liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the claimants herein (appellants no. 1 and 2).

(2.) Facts briefly stated are -

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellants questioned the award on the ground that while fixing quantum of compensation learned tribunal applied multiplier of 13 instead of 17 as per guidelines from second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and secondly, learned Tribunal was not justified to reduce or slash the claim by 20% on the ground of alleged contributory negligence, particularly in the absence of any material to infer that deceased Nitin was negligent in crossing the road. Eye witness examined was not cross-examined about alleged contributory negligence. Learned Advocate for appellants made reference to ruling in Syed Basheer and ors v. Mohd Jameel and anr,2009 4 MhLJ 228 to submit that there is no uniform rule or formula for measuring the value of human life. Structured formula under Section 163A can be taken as a guiding factor while determining the just compensation by applying multiplier method. Reference is then made to ruling in Mangala Sanjay Salunke and ors v. MSRTC and ors, 2005 4 MhLJ 31 to argue that in a fatal accident claim in respect of deceased aged about 25 years old, a multiplier of 17 was applied to award compensation to widow and children of deceased Sanjay in the cited case. Lastly, reference is made to New India Assurance v. Charlie and anr, 2005 AIR(SC) 2157 to submit that an appropriate highest multiplier ought to be used for computing the amount of compensation. According to learned Advocate for appellant, 17 could be an appropriate multiplier in the facts and circumstances of the present case without slashing/reducing the compensation amount arrived at by multiplier method.