Popatlal Dhanraj Wadgaonkar Vs. Dattu Yeshwant Tapkir and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- article 14: [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] retiral benefit - classification between part time lecturers and full time teachers held, the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. - this clearly showed that his earning capacity was reduced from rs. 500/-.this clearly implied that the truck was hired by the appellant himself and it cannot lie in his mouth now to say that the respondent no.p.s. patankar, j. 1. the appellant herein was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident goods truck bearing registration no. mhq-2832. the respondent no. 1 herein was the applicant who filed the claim petition. respondent no. 2 was the driver of the motor vehicle and respondent no. 3 the insurance company.2. the accident took place at about 10.30 p.m. on 9th february 1981 on alandi pune road at vadmukhwadi, charholi. the respondent no. 1 was one of the members of the marriage party which was taken in the motor vehicle. he was sitting in the driver's cabin. at a certain place the truck halted and the respondent no. 1 was trying to alight when the truck started all of a sudden and respondent no. l fell down due to which respondent no. 1 suffered serious injuries. he was required to be hospitalised for nearly 1 -1/2 months and was not able to work as a labourer. this gave rise to the claim petition by respondent no. 1 who claimed compensation of rs. 45,000/-. the claim was not resisted by respondent no. 2. it came to be resisted on behalf of the appellant by filing written statement at exhibit 21. the appellant denied that the .respondent no. 1 was a passenger in the truck. it was contended that respondent no. 1 himself was rash and negligent. it was also contended that respondent no. 2 has taken passengers in the truck illegally, and therefore, the appellant cannot be held vicariously responsible. respondent no. 3 insurance company contended that the insurance company was not liable as the respondent no. l was a passenger in the goods vehicle and the same was in contravention of the insurance policy, exhibit 51, and therefore, there can be no liability.3. the learned member of the motor accidents claims tribunal, pune, held that respondent no. 1 has proved the bodily injuries and disability suffered by him due to the rash or negligent driving of the motor vehicle. the learned member held that the respondent no. 1 was entitled to get compensation of rs. 15,000/-. the claim petition came to be allowed accordingly.4. the learned advocate for the appellant i.e. the owner of the motor vehicle, contends that the compensation granted was excessive inasmuch as there is no evidence led to show the disability suffered by respondent no. l. similarly, there is no evidence to prove that respondent no. 1 has suffered in any manner in his earning capacity. there is no foundation for granting pecuniary loss of rs. 9,500/-.5. on behalf of respondent no. 1, dr. eknath p. patil has entered the witness box at exhibit 68 who has deposed that the respondent no. 1 was an indoor patient from 10.2.1981 to 23.3.1981 and has given the 5 injuries suffered by the respondent no. 1 which are mentioned by the learned member of the tribunal in para 10 of the judgment. the doctor has also deposed that the respondent no. 1 was kept on traction for curing the fracture. respondent no. 1 himself entered the witness box at exhibit 64 and has deposed that he was hospitalised for 1-1/2 months. there was operation performed on his private part. he was required to spend huge amount of rs. 4,000/- to rs. 5,000/- for medical treatment. he has stated that he was working as a labourer on daily wages with j.b. hand made paper co. at bhosari and was getting rs. 8/- per day. he could not work as a labourer because of the accident and the advice given by the doctor. the evidence shows that he could not join the company again and he started running a pan shop and was earning rs. 150/- per month. this clearly showed that his earning capacity was reduced from rs. 240/- per month to rs.150/-. similarly, this also indicated that he suffered his physical disability. the evidence of respondent no. l was corroborated in material particulars by the evidence adduced by his father yeshwant at exhibit 63. hence, i hold that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that respondent no. 1 suffered in his earning capacity and also he suffered disability due to the accident.6. the learned advocate for the appellant next contended that respondent no. 1 was unauthorisedly taken by respondent no. 2 i.e. the driver in the truck and has committed an illegal act and therefore the appellant cannot be vicariously liable. the respondent no. 1 in his evidence at exhibit 64 in the cross-examination has stated that the marriage party was arranged by one sohba ghare who had taken the truck on hire for rs. 500/-. this clearly implied that the truck was hired by the appellant himself and it cannot lie in his mouth now to say that the respondent no. 2 has unauthorisedly taken passengers. the court below was right in coming to the conclusion that the hiring out of the truck to the marriage party must be with the express or implied permission of the appellant. hence, i reject this contention.7. the learned advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant was not permitted to lead evidence. the appellant had asked for adjournment but was refused. first i find no such point was raised in the court below. secondly, the appellant himself has not entered the witness box. it is not possible to accept the contention that proper opportunity was not given to the appellant to lead evidence. even nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of respondent no. l and his father. hence, i reject this contention.8. hence, the appeal is dismissed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.appeal dismissal