Rameshwar Ramkisan Kalantri v. Ganjiram Yashwant Jadhav

Firstly the counsel for Respondent No.1 - the driver of the mini bus contended that since the appeal against the owner of the mini bus O.C.Ribelo is dismissed by the Court either the appeal as its stand today is not maintainable or no claim can be awarded or considered against the driver - Respondent No.1.

Regarding enhancement of the compensation, my attention was drawn by the counsel for the appellants to para 10 of the judgment where Issue No.3 is discussed and decided by the tribunal. Para 10 is as under :- "10. Issue No.3 : On the point of quantum of compensation, Claimant Rameshwar has deposed that Rajgopal was running a shop of PVC pipes and electric motor etc. separately. For showing the income of Rajgopal, he filed Rajgopal’s 4 4 4 income tax assessment order for the year 1986-87 at Ex.30. In this assessment order Rs.20,030/- is shown as the net income liable for assessment. Likewise the claimant Rameshwar has also filed tax assessment order from the income tax department at Exh.38 in which total assessable income of Rajgopal is shown as Rs.29,670/-. This shows that his income was fluctuating in between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.29,000/- per year. So far the purpose of compensation, I think, it will be proper to assess his average income to Rs.26,000/- per year. Out of this Rs.13,000/- per year has to be deducted as his self expenses. so the net yearly dependency comes to Rs.13,000/-."

The counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that when Rajgopal was doing a business and he was filing income tax returns and from the income tax returns it was clear that his income was increasing year by year, taking average income of Rs.26,000/- as the basis for calculation was wrong and Rs.29,000/- should have been taken by the Court for making calculation. 5 5 5 He pointed out that in the Assessment Order for the year 1986-87 Rs.20,030/- is shown as his income and in the Assessment order Exhibit 38 Rs.29,670/- is shown as his income. He contended that in a business income is always increasing and this was evident from two assessments order. Therefore, according to him, taking Rs.26,000/- as the basis was not proper. Secondly counsel for the appellants contended that when there were four members in the family i.e. three appellants and deceased Rajgopal, then deduction of Rs.13,000/- per year out of annual income of Rs.26,000/- i.e. deduction of 1/2 of the amount of Rs.26,000/- was totally wrong. This wrong calculation has resulted in reducing dependency to Rs.13,000/-. Thirdly, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal accepted multiplier of 7. Looking to the age of parents i.e. 56 is for the father and 51 is for the mother, application of wrong multiplier has also resulted in reducing the amount of compensation.

So far as first objection of the counsel for the Respondent No.1 is concerned, it is true that Respondent No.1 is the driver and the appeal against the owner is dismissed. But on that 6 6 6 count, the entire appeal is not required to be dismissed. Whether any liability is to be fixed against the driver - Respondent No.1 has to be seen after considering the other aspects.

Reduction of Rs.13,000/- from the annual income of Rs.26,000/- i.e. deduction of 1/2 amount towards expenses of the deceased Rajgopal is admittedly wrong and even the counsel for Respondent No.5 fairly conceded that deduction should have been 1/3rd for Rajgopal. Counsel for the appellants contended that if there are four members in the family, then deduction should have been 1/4. I find in the circumstances that whatever was the annual income, 1/4th amount is the proper amount to be deducted as the expenses spent by the Rajgoapl for himself.

So far as fixing his average income of Rs.26,000/- , the counsel for the appellants contended that when the income in the business was raising year by year and as per Exhibit 38 it was Rs.29670/-, then Rs.29,000/- should have been accepted as average income. The Court has taken income of Rs.20,000/- for 1986-87 on one side and Rs.29,000/- on other side and, has taken 7 7 7 Rs.26,000/- as mean. I do not find there is much difference or the Court has committed any serious mistake.

So far as applicability of multiplier is concerned, the tribunal has applied multiplier of

7. According to the counsel for respondent No.5, multiplier of 8 at the most could have been applied. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2004(1) T.A.C. 3 2004(1) T.A.C. 3 2004(1) T.A.C. 3 (S.C.) [ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (S.C.) [ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (S.C.) [ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v/s. Shri Laxman Iyer and anr.] v/s. Shri Laxman Iyer and anr.] In that case a v/s. Shri Laxman Iyer and anr.] boy of 18 years died, the age of his parents was 47 and 43 respectively. The tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and it was confirmed by the High Court on higher side and, the Supreme Court held that it could never exceed 10. . Therefore, the counsel for Respondent No.5 contended that if the parents’ age in that case was 47 and 43 respectively and multiplier of 10 was applied by the Supreme Court, then in the instant case when the age of the parents of Rajgopal is 56 and 51 respectively, multiplier of 8 at the most should have been applied. 8 8 8 . As against this, the counsel for the appellants urged that the age of Rameshwar - the father at the time of his evidence was 55 years but the age of mother of the deceased was 48 years as per the evidence of PW.1 Rameshwar and not 51 years. He relied upon the judgment of the