LAWS(BOM)-1989-4-61

ZULEKHA BAI SAIFULLA CHAUDHARY Vs. MADHAV PARDHARIVATH JADHAV

Decided On April 25, 1989
Zulekha Bai Saifulla Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
Madhav Pardharivath Jadhav Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the original applicants in Motor Accident claim No. 317 of 1983 filed by them in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane. The appellants are the widow and 5 children of the deceased Saifulia Riyasat Chaudhary who died in an accident on 7th May, 1983.

(2.) IT seems that at about 11 a.m. on 7th May, 1983 Saifulia was travelling on the road from Nasik to Thane on his motor cycle. The original opponent No. 1 was the driver of a truck belonging to opponent No. 2 Company which was coming from the opposite direction. There was a collision between the motor cycle driven by Saifulia and the truck driven by opponent No. 1 near village Kalher. Though it is a regular highway, the road was only 12ft. wide at the spot of the accident. The accident took place at where there was an 'S' shaped curve on this road. According to Arjun Sitaram Goil, who was a security guard present at a distance of 15 ft. from the turning where the accident took place, he saw this accident. He has deposed that the truck was coming at a high speed. It was on the wrong side of the road. He has also stated that the right side of the truck hit the motor cycle, as a result of which Saifulia died on the spot. In view of this evidence the Tribunal has held opponent Nos. 1 and 2 guilly of negligence and has awarded compensation to the applicants as well as to opponent No. 4, who is the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has held that the income of Siafulla was about Rs. 800/- per month. He has calculated the dependency of the applicants as Rs. 500/- p.m. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was 32 years. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has taken a multiplier of only 13. It has arrived at the compensation figure of Rs. 78,000/-. In addition, it has granted Rs. 5,000/-to the widow of the deceased for the loss of consortium. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal is thus Rs. 83,000/-, The order also sets out the manner of distribution of this amount.

(3.) IN connection with the income of the deceased the 1st applicant, i.e. to say, the widow of the deceased, has given evidence, his son Shamiulla has also given evidence in that connection. The 1st applicant has deposed that the deceased was running a shop in which he carried on business of dealing in junk. He used to give her lump sum amounts of Rs. 200/- and sometimes Rs. 400/- from time to time. She has said that the deceased used to give her Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1200/- per month. She has very frankly stated that she was not aware of his real income. She has also given details of monthly expenses which she incurred from the amount given to her by the deceased. Particulars of these expenses show that these expenses came to about Rs. 800/- p.m. In the cross-examination she has stated that she received lump sum amounts from the deceased 3 or 4 times in a month. The business of the deceased came to an end on his death. Shamiulla son of the deceased has given evidence to the effect that in addition to his business, his father was also imparting tuitions in Arabic. Usmanniy a, an acquaintance of the deceased, has also given evidence to say that the deceased was coming to his house to give tuitions in Arabic to his grandson, Javed. He was paying Rs. 100/-p.m. to the deceased for tuitions. He has said that the deceased was giving tuitions to two/three children at Thane and Bhiwandi. In view of this evidence the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/-p.m. only. The approximate monthly expenditure which the wife of the deceased has given, does not cover all the expenses of the house. For example, it does not include the expenses for clothing, transport and so on. There is no challenge to her evidence to the effect that the deceased was giving her Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1,200/-p.m. The Tribunal has misconstrued her evidence when it says that according to the 1st applicant, her husband was giving her Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- p.m. She has merely said that he used to give her amounts in lump sum of Rs. 200/ - to Rs. 400/- from time to time. She has categorically said that the deceased used to give her Rs. 1, 000/- to Rs. 1200/- per month. There is also evidence to show that he was earning Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- p.m. by way of tuitions in Arabic. No satisfactory reason is given by the Tribunal for rejecting this evidence. In these circumstances the income of the deceased should have been considered as more than Rs. 1,200/- p.m. After allowing for the personal expenses of the deceased, income available to the applicants must be considered in the circumstances of the case to be at least Rs. 1000/- p.m. as per the evidence given by the wife of the deceased.