JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th March, 2006 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Satara (Tribunal) in MACP No. 161 of 2000 whereby the claim of the applicants/appellants No. 1 to 3 and 5 came to be partly allowed.
(2.)Appeal arises in the backdrop of the following facts:-
"a] For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to in the capacity in which they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
b] Madhukar Pokharkar (the deceased) was the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The applicant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased. Original applicant NO. 4 Gajabhau was the father of the deceased. He passed away during the pendency of the claim application.
c] The applicants preferred the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act, 1988) with the assertion that on 18th January, 2000 while the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing No. MXJ-6126, on his way to Satara, on Koregaon-Satara road, a Commander Jeep bearing No. MH-09-G-734, owned by opponent No. 1 and insured with opponent No. 2 approached in high speed and gave a violent dash to the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle drove the jeep in an extremely rash and negligent manner and dragged the deceased for a considerable distance. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The applicants averred that, the deceased was a builder and contractor by profession. He was the proprietor of 'Kangaru Movements 'and partner in Chinar Construction, Satara. He owned multiple vehicles. He was an income tax assessee. His yearly income from the said business of builder and contractor was in the range of Rs. 4 lakhs. The deceased owned agricultural land and had an annual income in the range of Rs. 50,000.00 therefrom. The applicants thus claimed compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs.
d] The claim was resisted by defendant No. 1 by fling written statement. It was denied that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. On the contrary, the deceased was at fault. In any event, since the vehicle was insured with opponent No. 2 insurer, the later was liable to indemnify the opponent No. 1.
e] The opponent No. 2 also resisted the claim by fling written statement. The mode and manner of the accident were denied. The claims about the age and income of the deceased and dependency were also contested.
f] The learned Member of the Tribunal recorded the evidence of Asha Pokharkar (PW.1) the applicant No.1, Sampatrao Lokhande (PW.2), an offcial at Public Works Department, Satara, Gulab Tatyaba Sonawane (PW.3), the Dy. Engineer attached to Irrigation Department, Satara, Hemant Barve (PW.4), the Income Tax Inspector and Iqbal Mulani (PW.5), the partner of the deceased in Chinar Construction. After appraisal of the evidence and the documents tendered for its perusal, the Tribunal was persuaded to record that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by its driver. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal thus awarded compensation of Rs. 19,15,000.00 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. The Tribunal, inter alia, adopted the multiplicand of 1,50,000.00 and applied the multiplier of '12 ', to determine loss of dependency in addition to the compensation under the conventional heads. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfed with the quantum of compensation, the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have preferred this appeal for enhanced compensation."
(3.)I have heard Mr. Sangram Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.S. Gole, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Poonam Mittal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2- insurer at length. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material including the depositions and evidence before the Tribunal which form part of the record and proceeding, requisitioned by this Court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.