M/s. Iffco­Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Vanita Bhaskar Parab & Ors.

Shri D.R. Mahadik i/by S.R.Singh & Co. for the Appellant. Shri Amol Mhatre for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Amogh Karandikar i/by Shri M.S. Bhardwaj for Respondent No.6. ­­ P.C. . CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 7TH JULY, 2011 Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The challenge is to the judgment and award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The claim application has been filed by the 1st to 4th Respondents herein. The claim was made on account of death of one Bhaskar Sahadev Parab in a motor accident. The 1st Respondent is a widow and the 2nd to 4th Respondents are children of the deceased. The compensation of Rs.7 lakhs was granted by the Tribunal. The liability of the Appellant is to the extent of 80% of the said amount. The 5th Respondent has been held liable to pay 20% of the amount.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2 fa-137.11 Appellant is that the quantum of compensation is excessive. He submitted that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/­ per month by way of agricultural income. He submitted that though the salary certificate of the deceased was exhibited, the same has not been duly proved. He pointed out the cross­examination of the witness Keshao Zilu Parab. He submitted that the children of the deceased were major and the multiplier applied is on the higher side.

I have carefully considered the submissions. The case of the 1st to 4th Respondents was that the deceased was employed with the department of Posts as a delivery man. The certificate of income showing the salary of Rs.3,489/­ of the deceased was exhibited in the deposition of the witness of Keshao. Though there is a detailed cross­ examination made as regards the preparation of certificate and though the certificate is challenged, there is no challenge to the statements in the examination­in­chief that the deceased was working in the department of Posts as a delivery man. Even assuming that the salary certificate is not proved, the salary of Rs.3,489/­ per month taken by the Tribunal is reasonable as the accident is of January, 2008.

The 1st to 4th Respondents filed certified copies of the 7/12 extracts on record. The certified copies of the extracts showed that the 3 fa-137.11 deceased was holding agricultural lands in which he used to take paddy crop. The 7/12 extracts also reveal that there were coconut of trees and mango trees on various lands held by the deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased from agriculture taken as Rs.4,000/­ per month is not at all unreasonable.

The age of the deceased is 55 years and the age of the 1st Respondent widow is 51 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, [(2009)6 SCC 12 ]. On the basis of the age of the 1st Respondent, the dependency has been considered. Hence, no fault can be found with the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

A sum of Rs.25,000/­ deposited by the Appellant, if pending in this Court, shall be refunded to the Appellant with interest, if any, accrued thereon.

The Civil Application No. 674 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

( A.S. OKA, J )