Skip to content


Sharanappa Laxmanappa Paramshetti and ors. Vs. Manik Kashinath Mahindrakar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC381
AppellantSharanappa Laxmanappa Paramshetti and ors.
RespondentManik Kashinath Mahindrakar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of shivanand has explained that shivanand was the only educated person in their family that his elder son was not doing well and that shivanand used to support all the members of the family by earning about rs......the father of the deceased had spoken about the income of shivanand of rs. 1,000/- per month, the learned member of the tribunal felt that in view of the cut-throat competition between the contractors and corruption prevailing in the market, a young contractor has to do business without earning a single farthing. with this view of the business, the learned member calculated the dependency of the members of the family at rs. 200/- per month.3. the father of shivanand has explained that shivanand was the only educated person in their family that his elder son was not doing well and that shivanand used to support all the members of the family by earning about rs. 1 000/- per month. even though the figure may be exaggerated, there is no basis for taking a dim view of the business as the.....
Judgment:

V.V. Vaze, J.

1. Shivanand, an unemployed graduate, was given a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the Bank of India. With this capital he started business and used to take contracts from the Municipal Committee, Zilla Parishad and Collectorate. He had repaid some of the loan but met with an accident while travelling in a matador vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 Nande and owned by respondent No. 1 Manik Mahindrakar, which proved to be fatal. As Shivanand was unmarried, his parents filed Claim Petition No. 5 of 1980 before the Accident Claims Tribunal. Ahmednagar, which awarded a sum of Rs. 18,560/-, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

2. Though evidence was led before the Tribunal that Shivanand had supplied materials worth Rs. 52,000/- to the Corporation in the year 1976-77 and the father of the deceased had spoken about the income of Shivanand of Rs. 1,000/- per month, the learned member of the Tribunal felt that in view of the cut-throat competition between the contractors and corruption prevailing in the market, a young contractor has to do business without earning a single farthing. With this view of the business, the learned member calculated the dependency of the members of the family at Rs. 200/- per month.

3. The father of Shivanand has explained that Shivanand was the only educated person in their family that his elder son was not doing well and that Shivanand used to support all the members of the family by earning about Rs. 1 000/- per month. Even though the figure may be exaggerated, there is no basis for taking a dim view of the business as the learned member has done. We feel that there is every reason to suppose that a contractor supplying goods worth Rs. 52,000/- did have a potential and that the dependency of the family could not have been less than Rs. 300/- per month.

4. Maintaining the method of calculations adopted by the learned member as respects Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, we find that the petitioners would have been entitled to a round figure of Rs. 35,000/-. We propose to deduct 20 per cent out of it as done by the learned member on account of lump sum payment and arrive at a figure of Rs. 28,000/-.

5. The appeal succeeds. For the figure of Rs. 18,560/- appearing in the first line of the order the figure of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand) is substituted. Rest of the order is confirmed. No order as to costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //