Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.

Decided On : May-07-1986

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motion Bench'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.M. Punchhi',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh',
			(int) 2 => 'V.P. Jathar',
			(int) 3 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 4 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 5 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 6 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 7 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 8 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 9 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 10 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 11 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 12 => 'Jathar Rs',
			(int) 13 => 'Jathar Rs',
			(int) 14 => 'D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs',
			(int) 15 => 'MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs',
			(int) 16 => 'Exhibit R. 2',
			(int) 17 => 'Mangla Jathar',
			(int) 18 => 'Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 19 => 'V.P. Jathar',
			(int) 20 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 21 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 22 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 23 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 24 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 25 => 'Jatharhad',
			(int) 26 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 27 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
			(int) 28 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 29 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 30 => 'Swati V. Ghatpande',
			(int) 31 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 32 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 33 => 'Vivek Dattatraya',
			(int) 34 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 35 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 36 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 37 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
			(int) 38 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 39 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 40 => 'Swati',
			(int) 41 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 42 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 43 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 44 => 'Meena Dattatraya',
			(int) 45 => 'Exhibit R. 2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'the New India Assurance Company Limited',
			(int) 2 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 3 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'the Post Graduate Institute',
			(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'the New India Assurance Company',
			(int) 9 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 11 => 'the Assurance Company',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'the Assurance Company',
			(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 16 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Fault',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
			(int) 22 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
			(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'the Associated Cement Company',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 29 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 30 => 'New India Assurance',
			(int) 31 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'four',
			(int) 1 => 'four',
			(int) 2 => '343',
			(int) 3 => '346',
			(int) 4 => 'four',
			(int) 5 => '352',
			(int) 6 => '355',
			(int) 7 => 'four',
			(int) 8 => '347',
			(int) 9 => '349',
			(int) 10 => '366',
			(int) 11 => 'eight',
			(int) 12 => '3610',
			(int) 13 => 'two',
			(int) 14 => 'three',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => '20,000/-(iii',
			(int) 17 => '48,000/-Besides',
			(int) 18 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 19 => 'two',
			(int) 20 => 'two',
			(int) 21 => 'one',
			(int) 22 => 'two',
			(int) 23 => '4691.67',
			(int) 24 => '500/-',
			(int) 25 => '1,325/-',
			(int) 26 => '3,000/-',
			(int) 27 => '2000/-',
			(int) 28 => '500/-',
			(int) 29 => '1,700/-',
			(int) 30 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 31 => '1',
			(int) 32 => '3,500/-',
			(int) 33 => '3,500/-',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 36 => '2,500/-',
			(int) 37 => '662.50/-',
			(int) 38 => '7,950/-',
			(int) 39 => '354',
			(int) 40 => '346',
			(int) 41 => 'three',
			(int) 42 => '17',
			(int) 43 => '200/-',
			(int) 44 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 45 => '12,000/-On',
			(int) 46 => '2,000/-------------Total:-',
			(int) 47 => 'three',
			(int) 48 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 49 => '353',
			(int) 50 => '343',
			(int) 51 => '1984:7',
			(int) 52 => 'two',
			(int) 53 => '600/-',
			(int) 54 => '2,700/-',
			(int) 55 => '125/-',
			(int) 56 => '10',
			(int) 57 => '600/-',
			(int) 58 => '3,200/-',
			(int) 59 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 60 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 61 => 'two',
			(int) 62 => '355',
			(int) 63 => '344',
			(int) 64 => '1984:8',
			(int) 65 => '500/-',
			(int) 66 => 'half',
			(int) 67 => '3,000/-',
			(int) 68 => '16',
			(int) 69 => 'half',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => '1',
			(int) 72 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 73 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 74 => 'two'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1984',
			(int) 1 => '1984',
			(int) 2 => '10-9-1982',
			(int) 3 => 'ten months later',
			(int) 4 => '10-7-1983',
			(int) 5 => 'two months later',
			(int) 6 => '1-11-1982',
			(int) 7 => '11 months',
			(int) 8 => '6,000/- per year',
			(int) 9 => 'the 11 months',
			(int) 10 => '11 months',
			(int) 11 => 'annually',
			(int) 12 => 'ten years',
			(int) 13 => '19846',
			(int) 14 => 'about 10 days',
			(int) 15 => '55 years of age',
			(int) 16 => 'the age of 55 years',
			(int) 17 => 'PW 6',
			(int) 18 => '22 years',
			(int) 19 => '60 years of age two months',
			(int) 20 => '6,000/-per year',
			(int) 21 => 'four years',
			(int) 22 => 'about 4 years'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Limine',
			(int) 1 => 'Kurali',
			(int) 2 => 'sums:(i',
			(int) 3 => 'Employee',
			(int) 4 => 'Bompay'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1.40 p.m.'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 3 => '12 per cent'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'North'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW 5'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ph.D.',
			(int) 1 => 'Ph.D.'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '623571',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar     Rs. 82,000/-
(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.
     Jathar                                   Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.
      Dattatraya Deuskar                      Rs. 60,000/-
(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. Meena
     Dattatraya Deuskar                       Rs. 48,000/-;For Medical expenses                       Rs.  1,000/-
For pain, suffering and loss of amenities
under the head of 'General Damages'        Rs. 12,000/-
On account of permanent disability of
teeth and disfigurement of face            Rs.  5,000/-
For the period during which Mrs. Jathar
had to employ the maid servant             Rs.  2,000/-
                                           ------------
                               Total:-      Rs. 20,000/-',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-05-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Punchhi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Punchhi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.A common award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on four claim applications. The dissatisfied claimants have filed four appeals being F.A.O. No. 343 to 346 of 1984. Correspondingly, four appeals being F.A.Os. Nos. 352 to 355 have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited being aggrieved against the apportionment and fixation of liability. There were yet another set of four corresponding appeals preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, being F.A.Os. Nos. 347 to 349 and 366 of 1984 which were dismissed by the Motion Bench in Limine. This judgment would thus dispose of the aforesaid eight appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A taxi bearing No. CHZ-158 was on its way on 10-9-1982 to Chandigarh from Kurali. The inmates thereof, besides its driver, were V.P. Jathar and his wife Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, the latter's sister Meena Dattatraya Deuskar and her husband D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. At 1.40 p.m. while on road, this taxi collided head on with bus No. PUB- 3610 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. As a result thereof Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar died at the spot as also Mr. Jathar. Besides the driver Mrs. Jathar survived but she received multiple injuries in the accident. She was removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh where she was medically treated. Thus, on account of the aforesaid accident, Mrs. Jathar file one claim application before the Tribunal, claiming compensation due to the injuries received by her and another, joining with her major son, claim application for the loss and damage suffered by them on account of the death of Mr. Jathar. Additionally, two separate claim applications were filed by three major children of Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar (two being major sons and the third one being a daughter) claiming compensation for the loss of each of their parent. Though the sums claimed were in high figures, the learned Tribunal awarded the following sums:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar Rs. 82,000/-(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.Jathar Rs. 20,000/-(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 60,000/-(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs. 48,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Besides, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The taxi was insured with the New India Assurance Company under Policy cover Exhibit R-2 on the record, whereunder it had assumed liability in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in terms thereof its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per passenger. Since the Tribunal had recorded a finding which is flexible with regard to the nature of liability and apportionment the Assurance Company, claiming relief, is keen to have it clarified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal has found that the liability was composite. Yet, in the same breath, it has held that 40 per cent negligence was that of the bus and 60 per cent that of the taxi. Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. The apportionment of liability would only arise in the case of contributory negligence. The effort of the Assurance Company on the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both the drivers, is to have its liability reduced in the terms of its policy Exhibit R. 2 and admitted its liability at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per claim, shifting the remaining liability on the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus. The claimants, however, are aggrieved for the award of lesser sums than claimed. In any case, neither party is disputing the happening of the accident and the liability of the respective vehicles, leaving apart of the war of words indulged in by the two respective driver so the offending vehicles, one blaming the other absolving himself of the liability. Still the only point which deserves to be settled is what is the rightful compensation due to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. These two appeals relate to the claim of Mrs. Mangla Jathar and her major son Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar on account of the death of V.P. Jathar. It has been established that the deceased was the Chief Regional Manager of the State Bank of India at Pune on the date of his death. He had come to the North in order to have a holiday enjoying his leave travel concession, for he was nearing the age of superannuation and expecting to retire ten months later on 10-7-1983. At the relevant time, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4691.67 per mensem. Had he died two months later, he would have come within the ambit of the Employee's Mutual Welfare Scheme which came into force on 1-11-1982 and, in that event, beneficially, his widow would have been entitled to pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. Besides, if he had lived and retired from service, he would have drawn a pension of Rs. 1,325/- per mensem. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal, taking these into account, took the view that, while in service, the deceased could be expected to be giving to his wife a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem towards his upkeep and the upkeep of his family. On that basis, it was assessed that the dependency of the widow (for, the major son was independent and not dependent on them) was to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per mensem. Since the deceased was expected to serve for 11 months more, it was thus calculated that his widow had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-. For the after period, it was supposedly held that, out of the pension of Rs. 1,325/-per mensem when received, the deceased would have paid a sum of Rs. 500/- per mensem to his wife for maintenance. Since that would amount to Rs. 6,000/- per year, the dependency was expected Rs. 82,000/-. Fault has been found with this reasoning. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant have job and a life spent with material satisfaction, he could not be expected to be spending nearly Rs. 1,700/- per mensem on himself and sparing just Rs. 3,000/- to his wife, out of which his personal expenditure was again to be deducted at Rs. 1,000/-. Some alteration in that figure has been pleaded for the 11 months he was to remain in service. It has been urged that thereafter when the deceased would have retired, it cannot be expected that he would sit idle, for he was an experienced and qualified man much in demand in the circles in which he had spent his life. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. 1325/- per mensem was expected to be shared equally by him and his wife 1 find enough force in these arguments. I see no reason why the statement of Mrs. Jathar be not believed when she says that her husband was giving her sum of Rs. 3,500/- per mensem for household expenses. It is not essential that whatever she has said must necessarily be reduced and brought it down to Rs. 3,000/- as held by the learned Tribunal. To my mind, her word should be enough to hold that the deceased was giving her a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for household expanses which she and the deceased shared towards the upkeep of the house, their clothing, food and expenses for social activities. Taking a cumulative view of the whole thing, 1 would feel that the food and clothing which were personal to the deceased, would not have exceeded more than Rs. 1,000/- per mensem and since Mrs. Jathar is alive, her dependency for the upkeep of her day of life would remain at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. Consequently, for 11 months while the deceased was to be in service, her dependency is calculated at Rs. 27,500/-. As hinted earlier, when the deceased would have become a pensioner, the dependency of Mrs. Jathar could, in no case, be less than Rs. 662.50/- which annually would mean Rs. 7,950/- which can be rounded up as Rs. 8,000/- per year. For ten years, on the basis as conceived by the Tribunal, Mrs. Jathar should have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Thus, the total claim which comes to be awarded Rs. 1,07,500/-. It is settled at this figure. F.A.O. Nos. 354 and 346 of 1984</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. These appeals relate to the injuries received by Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar. Undeniably, she had a compound fracture of both the bones of her left forearm which had to be plastered. Undeniably, she lost three teeth and her lip was cut. She remained about 10 days in the Post-Graduate Institute as an indoor patient and thereafter had been receiving . treatment not only at the Post-Graduate Institute at Chandigarh but at hospitals in Bompay. She had to receive plastic surgery to mend her lip and thereafter had to use dentures for, in the meantime, she had to have her other 17 teeth extracted. On the date of the accident, she was 55 years of age and in that accident lost her husband. Her claim is for normal damages on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering, disfigurement of face etc. as also for special damages. In her statement as PW 5 she has stated that before the accident she was doing her household work but thereafter she had to employ a maid servant at the expense of Rs. 200/- inclusive of food and clothing. The Tribunal awarded her a cumulative sum of Rs. 20,000/-, break-up of which is under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-For pain, suffering and loss of amenitiesunder the head of 'General Damages' Rs. 12,000/-On account of permanent disability ofteeth and disfigurement of face Rs. 5,000/-For the period during which Mrs. Jatharhad to employ the maid servant Rs. 2,000/-------------Total:- Rs. 20,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is nobody's case that Mrs. Jathar suffered any disability on account of the fracture of her forearm. The only permanent disability is with regard to the loss of three teeth and slight disfigurement of her lip at the age of 55 years. It cannot be said that she could have retained her teeth much longer. It is not her case that she had to keep a maid servant for the loss of any limb or that she was unable to do her household chores any longer. Bereft of evidence in that regard, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages on account of the treatment. No evidence has been pointed out to me to the contrary except suggestion that the expenditure would be much mere. Keeping all these factors into consideration and the possibility of any error having been crept in all these counts, I would enhance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.Os. Nos. 353 and 343 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. These cases pertain to the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. He was a retired man and his pension was Rs. 478/- per mensem. A claim petition, as said before, has been filed by his two major sons, namely, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, and a daughter named Mrs. Swati V. Ghatpande. Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar was dependent on him, for he was a student, though for doing Ph.D., he was himself drawing a stipend of Rs. 600/- per mensem which obviously must have been time bound. On the date of the accident, Mr. Deuskar, the deceased, had been re-employed by a private concern and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,700/- per mensem. Thus, his total emoluments on the date of his death worked out about Rs. 3,200/-. His younger son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar PW 6 was unmarried and aged 22 years. If the deceased had been alive, he would have worked and intended to work at least to see his young son settled. The deceased was a Civil Engineer and had experience as such having retired from the Associated Cement Company on the attainment of 60 years of age two months prior to his death. The learned tribunal has accepted the evidence of his re-employment and has yet determined the dependency of the younger son at Rs 250/- per mensem and Rs. 125/- per mensem each for the elder married son and the daughter. The dependency of Rs. 6,000/-per year has been given a multiplier of 10 to arrive at Rs. 60,000/- as compensation out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. Though the younger son was doing his Ph.D. and drawing a stipend from the Government at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensem but that by itself did not mean that it was a regular income. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life. Therefore, I would determine the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, the younger son of the deceased, in the manner that out of Rs. 3,200/- per mensem which the deceased was expected to earn, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem could safely have been earmarked for the education and settlement of his younger son for about 4 years. Thus, on this count, I would enhance the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar alone by Rs. 36,000/-over and above Rs. 12,000/- (which is included in Rs. 30,000/-) what the Tribunal has awarded. The remaining sum the deceased was expected to have spent on himself and his wife if he had been alive. These payments are thus allowed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 96,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, out of which a sum of Rs. 66,000/- shall go to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar claimant and the remaining sum of Rs. 30,000/- remains divided between the two other claimants, namely, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and Mrs. Swati.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.O. No. 355 and 344 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. These appeals pertain to the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar. She is the wife of D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar and was keeping house for him, doing household work. She had no income of her own. The Tribunal assessed her worth as household lady in terms of money at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem and deducting half of it on the expectation on that she would be spending that amount on her maintenance etc., it put the loss of the children on account of her death at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem, i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per annum. To that, it gave a multiplier of 16 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 48,000/-, out of which the Tribunal ordered half of it to go to the unmarried son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and the half to the two married children in equal shares. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has made an effort to get this sum enhanced by saying that her worth has not been properly weighed but he was remained unable to persuade me to alter that figure. Without commencing on the reasoning of the Tribunal, 1 would maintain the compensation as already awarded by it on account of the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The total sum awarded thus comes to Rs. 2,81,500/-. The liability of the appellant New India Assurance company would have to stay in terms of the policy Exhibit R. 2 at Rs. 10,000/- per injuries/dead person. Thus, the Assurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The remaining liability is that of the owners of the two offending vehicles and their respective drivers, jointly and severally. Besides that, the claimants shall get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till the date of realization of the awarded money. The common award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as afore-spelled out.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2(1986)ACC539',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Insurance;Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '623571'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motion Bench'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.M. Punchhi',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh',
		(int) 2 => 'V.P. Jathar',
		(int) 3 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 4 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 5 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 6 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 7 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 8 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 9 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 10 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 11 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 12 => 'Jathar Rs',
		(int) 13 => 'Jathar Rs',
		(int) 14 => 'D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs',
		(int) 15 => 'MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs',
		(int) 16 => 'Exhibit R. 2',
		(int) 17 => 'Mangla Jathar',
		(int) 18 => 'Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 19 => 'V.P. Jathar',
		(int) 20 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 21 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 22 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 23 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 24 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 25 => 'Jatharhad',
		(int) 26 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 27 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
		(int) 28 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 29 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 30 => 'Swati V. Ghatpande',
		(int) 31 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 32 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 33 => 'Vivek Dattatraya',
		(int) 34 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 35 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 36 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 37 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
		(int) 38 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 39 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 40 => 'Swati',
		(int) 41 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 42 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 43 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 44 => 'Meena Dattatraya',
		(int) 45 => 'Exhibit R. 2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'the New India Assurance Company Limited',
		(int) 2 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 3 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'the Post Graduate Institute',
		(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'the New India Assurance Company',
		(int) 9 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 11 => 'the Assurance Company',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'the Assurance Company',
		(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 16 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Fault',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
		(int) 22 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
		(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'the Associated Cement Company',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 29 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 30 => 'New India Assurance',
		(int) 31 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'four',
		(int) 1 => 'four',
		(int) 2 => '343',
		(int) 3 => '346',
		(int) 4 => 'four',
		(int) 5 => '352',
		(int) 6 => '355',
		(int) 7 => 'four',
		(int) 8 => '347',
		(int) 9 => '349',
		(int) 10 => '366',
		(int) 11 => 'eight',
		(int) 12 => '3610',
		(int) 13 => 'two',
		(int) 14 => 'three',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => '20,000/-(iii',
		(int) 17 => '48,000/-Besides',
		(int) 18 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 19 => 'two',
		(int) 20 => 'two',
		(int) 21 => 'one',
		(int) 22 => 'two',
		(int) 23 => '4691.67',
		(int) 24 => '500/-',
		(int) 25 => '1,325/-',
		(int) 26 => '3,000/-',
		(int) 27 => '2000/-',
		(int) 28 => '500/-',
		(int) 29 => '1,700/-',
		(int) 30 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 31 => '1',
		(int) 32 => '3,500/-',
		(int) 33 => '3,500/-',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 36 => '2,500/-',
		(int) 37 => '662.50/-',
		(int) 38 => '7,950/-',
		(int) 39 => '354',
		(int) 40 => '346',
		(int) 41 => 'three',
		(int) 42 => '17',
		(int) 43 => '200/-',
		(int) 44 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 45 => '12,000/-On',
		(int) 46 => '2,000/-------------Total:-',
		(int) 47 => 'three',
		(int) 48 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 49 => '353',
		(int) 50 => '343',
		(int) 51 => '1984:7',
		(int) 52 => 'two',
		(int) 53 => '600/-',
		(int) 54 => '2,700/-',
		(int) 55 => '125/-',
		(int) 56 => '10',
		(int) 57 => '600/-',
		(int) 58 => '3,200/-',
		(int) 59 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 60 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 61 => 'two',
		(int) 62 => '355',
		(int) 63 => '344',
		(int) 64 => '1984:8',
		(int) 65 => '500/-',
		(int) 66 => 'half',
		(int) 67 => '3,000/-',
		(int) 68 => '16',
		(int) 69 => 'half',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => '1',
		(int) 72 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 73 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 74 => 'two'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1984',
		(int) 1 => '1984',
		(int) 2 => '10-9-1982',
		(int) 3 => 'ten months later',
		(int) 4 => '10-7-1983',
		(int) 5 => 'two months later',
		(int) 6 => '1-11-1982',
		(int) 7 => '11 months',
		(int) 8 => '6,000/- per year',
		(int) 9 => 'the 11 months',
		(int) 10 => '11 months',
		(int) 11 => 'annually',
		(int) 12 => 'ten years',
		(int) 13 => '19846',
		(int) 14 => 'about 10 days',
		(int) 15 => '55 years of age',
		(int) 16 => 'the age of 55 years',
		(int) 17 => 'PW 6',
		(int) 18 => '22 years',
		(int) 19 => '60 years of age two months',
		(int) 20 => '6,000/-per year',
		(int) 21 => 'four years',
		(int) 22 => 'about 4 years'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Limine',
		(int) 1 => 'Kurali',
		(int) 2 => 'sums:(i',
		(int) 3 => 'Employee',
		(int) 4 => 'Bompay'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1.40 p.m.'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 3 => '12 per cent'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'North'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW 5'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ph.D.',
		(int) 1 => 'Ph.D.'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '623571',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar     Rs. 82,000/-
(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.
     Jathar                                   Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.
      Dattatraya Deuskar                      Rs. 60,000/-
(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. Meena
     Dattatraya Deuskar                       Rs. 48,000/-;For Medical expenses                       Rs.  1,000/-
For pain, suffering and loss of amenities
under the head of 'General Damages'        Rs. 12,000/-
On account of permanent disability of
teeth and disfigurement of face            Rs.  5,000/-
For the period during which Mrs. Jathar
had to employ the maid servant             Rs.  2,000/-
                                           ------------
                               Total:-      Rs. 20,000/-',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-05-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Punchhi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Punchhi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.A common award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on four claim applications. The dissatisfied claimants have filed four appeals being F.A.O. No. 343 to 346 of 1984. Correspondingly, four appeals being F.A.Os. Nos. 352 to 355 have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited being aggrieved against the apportionment and fixation of liability. There were yet another set of four corresponding appeals preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, being F.A.Os. Nos. 347 to 349 and 366 of 1984 which were dismissed by the Motion Bench in Limine. This judgment would thus dispose of the aforesaid eight appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A taxi bearing No. CHZ-158 was on its way on 10-9-1982 to Chandigarh from Kurali. The inmates thereof, besides its driver, were V.P. Jathar and his wife Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, the latter's sister Meena Dattatraya Deuskar and her husband D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. At 1.40 p.m. while on road, this taxi collided head on with bus No. PUB- 3610 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. As a result thereof Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar died at the spot as also Mr. Jathar. Besides the driver Mrs. Jathar survived but she received multiple injuries in the accident. She was removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh where she was medically treated. Thus, on account of the aforesaid accident, Mrs. Jathar file one claim application before the Tribunal, claiming compensation due to the injuries received by her and another, joining with her major son, claim application for the loss and damage suffered by them on account of the death of Mr. Jathar. Additionally, two separate claim applications were filed by three major children of Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar (two being major sons and the third one being a daughter) claiming compensation for the loss of each of their parent. Though the sums claimed were in high figures, the learned Tribunal awarded the following sums:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar Rs. 82,000/-(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.Jathar Rs. 20,000/-(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 60,000/-(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs. 48,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Besides, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The taxi was insured with the New India Assurance Company under Policy cover Exhibit R-2 on the record, whereunder it had assumed liability in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in terms thereof its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per passenger. Since the Tribunal had recorded a finding which is flexible with regard to the nature of liability and apportionment the Assurance Company, claiming relief, is keen to have it clarified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal has found that the liability was composite. Yet, in the same breath, it has held that 40 per cent negligence was that of the bus and 60 per cent that of the taxi. Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. The apportionment of liability would only arise in the case of contributory negligence. The effort of the Assurance Company on the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both the drivers, is to have its liability reduced in the terms of its policy Exhibit R. 2 and admitted its liability at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per claim, shifting the remaining liability on the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus. The claimants, however, are aggrieved for the award of lesser sums than claimed. In any case, neither party is disputing the happening of the accident and the liability of the respective vehicles, leaving apart of the war of words indulged in by the two respective driver so the offending vehicles, one blaming the other absolving himself of the liability. Still the only point which deserves to be settled is what is the rightful compensation due to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. These two appeals relate to the claim of Mrs. Mangla Jathar and her major son Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar on account of the death of V.P. Jathar. It has been established that the deceased was the Chief Regional Manager of the State Bank of India at Pune on the date of his death. He had come to the North in order to have a holiday enjoying his leave travel concession, for he was nearing the age of superannuation and expecting to retire ten months later on 10-7-1983. At the relevant time, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4691.67 per mensem. Had he died two months later, he would have come within the ambit of the Employee's Mutual Welfare Scheme which came into force on 1-11-1982 and, in that event, beneficially, his widow would have been entitled to pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. Besides, if he had lived and retired from service, he would have drawn a pension of Rs. 1,325/- per mensem. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal, taking these into account, took the view that, while in service, the deceased could be expected to be giving to his wife a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem towards his upkeep and the upkeep of his family. On that basis, it was assessed that the dependency of the widow (for, the major son was independent and not dependent on them) was to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per mensem. Since the deceased was expected to serve for 11 months more, it was thus calculated that his widow had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-. For the after period, it was supposedly held that, out of the pension of Rs. 1,325/-per mensem when received, the deceased would have paid a sum of Rs. 500/- per mensem to his wife for maintenance. Since that would amount to Rs. 6,000/- per year, the dependency was expected Rs. 82,000/-. Fault has been found with this reasoning. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant have job and a life spent with material satisfaction, he could not be expected to be spending nearly Rs. 1,700/- per mensem on himself and sparing just Rs. 3,000/- to his wife, out of which his personal expenditure was again to be deducted at Rs. 1,000/-. Some alteration in that figure has been pleaded for the 11 months he was to remain in service. It has been urged that thereafter when the deceased would have retired, it cannot be expected that he would sit idle, for he was an experienced and qualified man much in demand in the circles in which he had spent his life. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. 1325/- per mensem was expected to be shared equally by him and his wife 1 find enough force in these arguments. I see no reason why the statement of Mrs. Jathar be not believed when she says that her husband was giving her sum of Rs. 3,500/- per mensem for household expenses. It is not essential that whatever she has said must necessarily be reduced and brought it down to Rs. 3,000/- as held by the learned Tribunal. To my mind, her word should be enough to hold that the deceased was giving her a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for household expanses which she and the deceased shared towards the upkeep of the house, their clothing, food and expenses for social activities. Taking a cumulative view of the whole thing, 1 would feel that the food and clothing which were personal to the deceased, would not have exceeded more than Rs. 1,000/- per mensem and since Mrs. Jathar is alive, her dependency for the upkeep of her day of life would remain at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. Consequently, for 11 months while the deceased was to be in service, her dependency is calculated at Rs. 27,500/-. As hinted earlier, when the deceased would have become a pensioner, the dependency of Mrs. Jathar could, in no case, be less than Rs. 662.50/- which annually would mean Rs. 7,950/- which can be rounded up as Rs. 8,000/- per year. For ten years, on the basis as conceived by the Tribunal, Mrs. Jathar should have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Thus, the total claim which comes to be awarded Rs. 1,07,500/-. It is settled at this figure. F.A.O. Nos. 354 and 346 of 1984</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. These appeals relate to the injuries received by Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar. Undeniably, she had a compound fracture of both the bones of her left forearm which had to be plastered. Undeniably, she lost three teeth and her lip was cut. She remained about 10 days in the Post-Graduate Institute as an indoor patient and thereafter had been receiving . treatment not only at the Post-Graduate Institute at Chandigarh but at hospitals in Bompay. She had to receive plastic surgery to mend her lip and thereafter had to use dentures for, in the meantime, she had to have her other 17 teeth extracted. On the date of the accident, she was 55 years of age and in that accident lost her husband. Her claim is for normal damages on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering, disfigurement of face etc. as also for special damages. In her statement as PW 5 she has stated that before the accident she was doing her household work but thereafter she had to employ a maid servant at the expense of Rs. 200/- inclusive of food and clothing. The Tribunal awarded her a cumulative sum of Rs. 20,000/-, break-up of which is under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-For pain, suffering and loss of amenitiesunder the head of 'General Damages' Rs. 12,000/-On account of permanent disability ofteeth and disfigurement of face Rs. 5,000/-For the period during which Mrs. Jatharhad to employ the maid servant Rs. 2,000/-------------Total:- Rs. 20,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is nobody's case that Mrs. Jathar suffered any disability on account of the fracture of her forearm. The only permanent disability is with regard to the loss of three teeth and slight disfigurement of her lip at the age of 55 years. It cannot be said that she could have retained her teeth much longer. It is not her case that she had to keep a maid servant for the loss of any limb or that she was unable to do her household chores any longer. Bereft of evidence in that regard, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages on account of the treatment. No evidence has been pointed out to me to the contrary except suggestion that the expenditure would be much mere. Keeping all these factors into consideration and the possibility of any error having been crept in all these counts, I would enhance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.Os. Nos. 353 and 343 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. These cases pertain to the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. He was a retired man and his pension was Rs. 478/- per mensem. A claim petition, as said before, has been filed by his two major sons, namely, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, and a daughter named Mrs. Swati V. Ghatpande. Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar was dependent on him, for he was a student, though for doing Ph.D., he was himself drawing a stipend of Rs. 600/- per mensem which obviously must have been time bound. On the date of the accident, Mr. Deuskar, the deceased, had been re-employed by a private concern and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,700/- per mensem. Thus, his total emoluments on the date of his death worked out about Rs. 3,200/-. His younger son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar PW 6 was unmarried and aged 22 years. If the deceased had been alive, he would have worked and intended to work at least to see his young son settled. The deceased was a Civil Engineer and had experience as such having retired from the Associated Cement Company on the attainment of 60 years of age two months prior to his death. The learned tribunal has accepted the evidence of his re-employment and has yet determined the dependency of the younger son at Rs 250/- per mensem and Rs. 125/- per mensem each for the elder married son and the daughter. The dependency of Rs. 6,000/-per year has been given a multiplier of 10 to arrive at Rs. 60,000/- as compensation out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. Though the younger son was doing his Ph.D. and drawing a stipend from the Government at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensem but that by itself did not mean that it was a regular income. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life. Therefore, I would determine the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, the younger son of the deceased, in the manner that out of Rs. 3,200/- per mensem which the deceased was expected to earn, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem could safely have been earmarked for the education and settlement of his younger son for about 4 years. Thus, on this count, I would enhance the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar alone by Rs. 36,000/-over and above Rs. 12,000/- (which is included in Rs. 30,000/-) what the Tribunal has awarded. The remaining sum the deceased was expected to have spent on himself and his wife if he had been alive. These payments are thus allowed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 96,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, out of which a sum of Rs. 66,000/- shall go to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar claimant and the remaining sum of Rs. 30,000/- remains divided between the two other claimants, namely, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and Mrs. Swati.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.O. No. 355 and 344 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. These appeals pertain to the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar. She is the wife of D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar and was keeping house for him, doing household work. She had no income of her own. The Tribunal assessed her worth as household lady in terms of money at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem and deducting half of it on the expectation on that she would be spending that amount on her maintenance etc., it put the loss of the children on account of her death at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem, i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per annum. To that, it gave a multiplier of 16 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 48,000/-, out of which the Tribunal ordered half of it to go to the unmarried son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and the half to the two married children in equal shares. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has made an effort to get this sum enhanced by saying that her worth has not been properly weighed but he was remained unable to persuade me to alter that figure. Without commencing on the reasoning of the Tribunal, 1 would maintain the compensation as already awarded by it on account of the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The total sum awarded thus comes to Rs. 2,81,500/-. The liability of the appellant New India Assurance company would have to stay in terms of the policy Exhibit R. 2 at Rs. 10,000/- per injuries/dead person. Thus, the Assurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The remaining liability is that of the owners of the two offending vehicles and their respective drivers, jointly and severally. Besides that, the claimants shall get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till the date of realization of the awarded money. The common award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as afore-spelled out.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2(1986)ACC539',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Insurance;Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '623571'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motion Bench'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.M. Punchhi',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh',
			(int) 2 => 'V.P. Jathar',
			(int) 3 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 4 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 5 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 6 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 7 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 8 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 9 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 10 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 11 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 12 => 'Jathar Rs',
			(int) 13 => 'Jathar Rs',
			(int) 14 => 'D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs',
			(int) 15 => 'MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs',
			(int) 16 => 'Exhibit R. 2',
			(int) 17 => 'Mangla Jathar',
			(int) 18 => 'Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 19 => 'V.P. Jathar',
			(int) 20 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 21 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 22 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 23 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 24 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
			(int) 25 => 'Jatharhad',
			(int) 26 => 'Jathar',
			(int) 27 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
			(int) 28 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 29 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 30 => 'Swati V. Ghatpande',
			(int) 31 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 32 => 'Deuskar',
			(int) 33 => 'Vivek Dattatraya',
			(int) 34 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 35 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 36 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 37 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
			(int) 38 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 39 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 40 => 'Swati',
			(int) 41 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 42 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 43 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
			(int) 44 => 'Meena Dattatraya',
			(int) 45 => 'Exhibit R. 2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'the New India Assurance Company Limited',
			(int) 2 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 3 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'the Post Graduate Institute',
			(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'the New India Assurance Company',
			(int) 9 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act',
			(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 11 => 'the Assurance Company',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'the Assurance Company',
			(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 16 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Fault',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
			(int) 22 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
			(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'the Associated Cement Company',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 29 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 30 => 'New India Assurance',
			(int) 31 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'four',
			(int) 1 => 'four',
			(int) 2 => '343',
			(int) 3 => '346',
			(int) 4 => 'four',
			(int) 5 => '352',
			(int) 6 => '355',
			(int) 7 => 'four',
			(int) 8 => '347',
			(int) 9 => '349',
			(int) 10 => '366',
			(int) 11 => 'eight',
			(int) 12 => '3610',
			(int) 13 => 'two',
			(int) 14 => 'three',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => '20,000/-(iii',
			(int) 17 => '48,000/-Besides',
			(int) 18 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 19 => 'two',
			(int) 20 => 'two',
			(int) 21 => 'one',
			(int) 22 => 'two',
			(int) 23 => '4691.67',
			(int) 24 => '500/-',
			(int) 25 => '1,325/-',
			(int) 26 => '3,000/-',
			(int) 27 => '2000/-',
			(int) 28 => '500/-',
			(int) 29 => '1,700/-',
			(int) 30 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 31 => '1',
			(int) 32 => '3,500/-',
			(int) 33 => '3,500/-',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 36 => '2,500/-',
			(int) 37 => '662.50/-',
			(int) 38 => '7,950/-',
			(int) 39 => '354',
			(int) 40 => '346',
			(int) 41 => 'three',
			(int) 42 => '17',
			(int) 43 => '200/-',
			(int) 44 => '20,000/-',
			(int) 45 => '12,000/-On',
			(int) 46 => '2,000/-------------Total:-',
			(int) 47 => 'three',
			(int) 48 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 49 => '353',
			(int) 50 => '343',
			(int) 51 => '1984:7',
			(int) 52 => 'two',
			(int) 53 => '600/-',
			(int) 54 => '2,700/-',
			(int) 55 => '125/-',
			(int) 56 => '10',
			(int) 57 => '600/-',
			(int) 58 => '3,200/-',
			(int) 59 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 60 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 61 => 'two',
			(int) 62 => '355',
			(int) 63 => '344',
			(int) 64 => '1984:8',
			(int) 65 => '500/-',
			(int) 66 => 'half',
			(int) 67 => '3,000/-',
			(int) 68 => '16',
			(int) 69 => 'half',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => '1',
			(int) 72 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 73 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 74 => 'two'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1984',
			(int) 1 => '1984',
			(int) 2 => '10-9-1982',
			(int) 3 => 'ten months later',
			(int) 4 => '10-7-1983',
			(int) 5 => 'two months later',
			(int) 6 => '1-11-1982',
			(int) 7 => '11 months',
			(int) 8 => '6,000/- per year',
			(int) 9 => 'the 11 months',
			(int) 10 => '11 months',
			(int) 11 => 'annually',
			(int) 12 => 'ten years',
			(int) 13 => '19846',
			(int) 14 => 'about 10 days',
			(int) 15 => '55 years of age',
			(int) 16 => 'the age of 55 years',
			(int) 17 => 'PW 6',
			(int) 18 => '22 years',
			(int) 19 => '60 years of age two months',
			(int) 20 => '6,000/-per year',
			(int) 21 => 'four years',
			(int) 22 => 'about 4 years'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Limine',
			(int) 1 => 'Kurali',
			(int) 2 => 'sums:(i',
			(int) 3 => 'Employee',
			(int) 4 => 'Bompay'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1.40 p.m.'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 3 => '12 per cent'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'North'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW 5'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ph.D.',
			(int) 1 => 'Ph.D.'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '623571',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar     Rs. 82,000/-
(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.
     Jathar                                   Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.
      Dattatraya Deuskar                      Rs. 60,000/-
(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. Meena
     Dattatraya Deuskar                       Rs. 48,000/-;For Medical expenses                       Rs.  1,000/-
For pain, suffering and loss of amenities
under the head of 'General Damages'        Rs. 12,000/-
On account of permanent disability of
teeth and disfigurement of face            Rs.  5,000/-
For the period during which Mrs. Jathar
had to employ the maid servant             Rs.  2,000/-
                                           ------------
                               Total:-      Rs. 20,000/-',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-05-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Punchhi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Punchhi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.A common award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on four claim applications. The dissatisfied claimants have filed four appeals being F.A.O. No. 343 to 346 of 1984. Correspondingly, four appeals being F.A.Os. Nos. 352 to 355 have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited being aggrieved against the apportionment and fixation of liability. There were yet another set of four corresponding appeals preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, being F.A.Os. Nos. 347 to 349 and 366 of 1984 which were dismissed by the Motion Bench in Limine. This judgment would thus dispose of the aforesaid eight appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A taxi bearing No. CHZ-158 was on its way on 10-9-1982 to Chandigarh from Kurali. The inmates thereof, besides its driver, were V.P. Jathar and his wife Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, the latter's sister Meena Dattatraya Deuskar and her husband D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. At 1.40 p.m. while on road, this taxi collided head on with bus No. PUB- 3610 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. As a result thereof Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar died at the spot as also Mr. Jathar. Besides the driver Mrs. Jathar survived but she received multiple injuries in the accident. She was removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh where she was medically treated. Thus, on account of the aforesaid accident, Mrs. Jathar file one claim application before the Tribunal, claiming compensation due to the injuries received by her and another, joining with her major son, claim application for the loss and damage suffered by them on account of the death of Mr. Jathar. Additionally, two separate claim applications were filed by three major children of Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar (two being major sons and the third one being a daughter) claiming compensation for the loss of each of their parent. Though the sums claimed were in high figures, the learned Tribunal awarded the following sums:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar Rs. 82,000/-(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.Jathar Rs. 20,000/-(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 60,000/-(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs. 48,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Besides, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The taxi was insured with the New India Assurance Company under Policy cover Exhibit R-2 on the record, whereunder it had assumed liability in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in terms thereof its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per passenger. Since the Tribunal had recorded a finding which is flexible with regard to the nature of liability and apportionment the Assurance Company, claiming relief, is keen to have it clarified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal has found that the liability was composite. Yet, in the same breath, it has held that 40 per cent negligence was that of the bus and 60 per cent that of the taxi. Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. The apportionment of liability would only arise in the case of contributory negligence. The effort of the Assurance Company on the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both the drivers, is to have its liability reduced in the terms of its policy Exhibit R. 2 and admitted its liability at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per claim, shifting the remaining liability on the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus. The claimants, however, are aggrieved for the award of lesser sums than claimed. In any case, neither party is disputing the happening of the accident and the liability of the respective vehicles, leaving apart of the war of words indulged in by the two respective driver so the offending vehicles, one blaming the other absolving himself of the liability. Still the only point which deserves to be settled is what is the rightful compensation due to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. These two appeals relate to the claim of Mrs. Mangla Jathar and her major son Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar on account of the death of V.P. Jathar. It has been established that the deceased was the Chief Regional Manager of the State Bank of India at Pune on the date of his death. He had come to the North in order to have a holiday enjoying his leave travel concession, for he was nearing the age of superannuation and expecting to retire ten months later on 10-7-1983. At the relevant time, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4691.67 per mensem. Had he died two months later, he would have come within the ambit of the Employee's Mutual Welfare Scheme which came into force on 1-11-1982 and, in that event, beneficially, his widow would have been entitled to pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. Besides, if he had lived and retired from service, he would have drawn a pension of Rs. 1,325/- per mensem. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal, taking these into account, took the view that, while in service, the deceased could be expected to be giving to his wife a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem towards his upkeep and the upkeep of his family. On that basis, it was assessed that the dependency of the widow (for, the major son was independent and not dependent on them) was to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per mensem. Since the deceased was expected to serve for 11 months more, it was thus calculated that his widow had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-. For the after period, it was supposedly held that, out of the pension of Rs. 1,325/-per mensem when received, the deceased would have paid a sum of Rs. 500/- per mensem to his wife for maintenance. Since that would amount to Rs. 6,000/- per year, the dependency was expected Rs. 82,000/-. Fault has been found with this reasoning. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant have job and a life spent with material satisfaction, he could not be expected to be spending nearly Rs. 1,700/- per mensem on himself and sparing just Rs. 3,000/- to his wife, out of which his personal expenditure was again to be deducted at Rs. 1,000/-. Some alteration in that figure has been pleaded for the 11 months he was to remain in service. It has been urged that thereafter when the deceased would have retired, it cannot be expected that he would sit idle, for he was an experienced and qualified man much in demand in the circles in which he had spent his life. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. 1325/- per mensem was expected to be shared equally by him and his wife 1 find enough force in these arguments. I see no reason why the statement of Mrs. Jathar be not believed when she says that her husband was giving her sum of Rs. 3,500/- per mensem for household expenses. It is not essential that whatever she has said must necessarily be reduced and brought it down to Rs. 3,000/- as held by the learned Tribunal. To my mind, her word should be enough to hold that the deceased was giving her a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for household expanses which she and the deceased shared towards the upkeep of the house, their clothing, food and expenses for social activities. Taking a cumulative view of the whole thing, 1 would feel that the food and clothing which were personal to the deceased, would not have exceeded more than Rs. 1,000/- per mensem and since Mrs. Jathar is alive, her dependency for the upkeep of her day of life would remain at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. Consequently, for 11 months while the deceased was to be in service, her dependency is calculated at Rs. 27,500/-. As hinted earlier, when the deceased would have become a pensioner, the dependency of Mrs. Jathar could, in no case, be less than Rs. 662.50/- which annually would mean Rs. 7,950/- which can be rounded up as Rs. 8,000/- per year. For ten years, on the basis as conceived by the Tribunal, Mrs. Jathar should have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Thus, the total claim which comes to be awarded Rs. 1,07,500/-. It is settled at this figure. F.A.O. Nos. 354 and 346 of 1984</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. These appeals relate to the injuries received by Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar. Undeniably, she had a compound fracture of both the bones of her left forearm which had to be plastered. Undeniably, she lost three teeth and her lip was cut. She remained about 10 days in the Post-Graduate Institute as an indoor patient and thereafter had been receiving . treatment not only at the Post-Graduate Institute at Chandigarh but at hospitals in Bompay. She had to receive plastic surgery to mend her lip and thereafter had to use dentures for, in the meantime, she had to have her other 17 teeth extracted. On the date of the accident, she was 55 years of age and in that accident lost her husband. Her claim is for normal damages on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering, disfigurement of face etc. as also for special damages. In her statement as PW 5 she has stated that before the accident she was doing her household work but thereafter she had to employ a maid servant at the expense of Rs. 200/- inclusive of food and clothing. The Tribunal awarded her a cumulative sum of Rs. 20,000/-, break-up of which is under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-For pain, suffering and loss of amenitiesunder the head of 'General Damages' Rs. 12,000/-On account of permanent disability ofteeth and disfigurement of face Rs. 5,000/-For the period during which Mrs. Jatharhad to employ the maid servant Rs. 2,000/-------------Total:- Rs. 20,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is nobody's case that Mrs. Jathar suffered any disability on account of the fracture of her forearm. The only permanent disability is with regard to the loss of three teeth and slight disfigurement of her lip at the age of 55 years. It cannot be said that she could have retained her teeth much longer. It is not her case that she had to keep a maid servant for the loss of any limb or that she was unable to do her household chores any longer. Bereft of evidence in that regard, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages on account of the treatment. No evidence has been pointed out to me to the contrary except suggestion that the expenditure would be much mere. Keeping all these factors into consideration and the possibility of any error having been crept in all these counts, I would enhance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.Os. Nos. 353 and 343 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. These cases pertain to the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. He was a retired man and his pension was Rs. 478/- per mensem. A claim petition, as said before, has been filed by his two major sons, namely, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, and a daughter named Mrs. Swati V. Ghatpande. Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar was dependent on him, for he was a student, though for doing Ph.D., he was himself drawing a stipend of Rs. 600/- per mensem which obviously must have been time bound. On the date of the accident, Mr. Deuskar, the deceased, had been re-employed by a private concern and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,700/- per mensem. Thus, his total emoluments on the date of his death worked out about Rs. 3,200/-. His younger son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar PW 6 was unmarried and aged 22 years. If the deceased had been alive, he would have worked and intended to work at least to see his young son settled. The deceased was a Civil Engineer and had experience as such having retired from the Associated Cement Company on the attainment of 60 years of age two months prior to his death. The learned tribunal has accepted the evidence of his re-employment and has yet determined the dependency of the younger son at Rs 250/- per mensem and Rs. 125/- per mensem each for the elder married son and the daughter. The dependency of Rs. 6,000/-per year has been given a multiplier of 10 to arrive at Rs. 60,000/- as compensation out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. Though the younger son was doing his Ph.D. and drawing a stipend from the Government at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensem but that by itself did not mean that it was a regular income. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life. Therefore, I would determine the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, the younger son of the deceased, in the manner that out of Rs. 3,200/- per mensem which the deceased was expected to earn, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem could safely have been earmarked for the education and settlement of his younger son for about 4 years. Thus, on this count, I would enhance the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar alone by Rs. 36,000/-over and above Rs. 12,000/- (which is included in Rs. 30,000/-) what the Tribunal has awarded. The remaining sum the deceased was expected to have spent on himself and his wife if he had been alive. These payments are thus allowed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 96,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, out of which a sum of Rs. 66,000/- shall go to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar claimant and the remaining sum of Rs. 30,000/- remains divided between the two other claimants, namely, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and Mrs. Swati.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.O. No. 355 and 344 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. These appeals pertain to the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar. She is the wife of D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar and was keeping house for him, doing household work. She had no income of her own. The Tribunal assessed her worth as household lady in terms of money at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem and deducting half of it on the expectation on that she would be spending that amount on her maintenance etc., it put the loss of the children on account of her death at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem, i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per annum. To that, it gave a multiplier of 16 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 48,000/-, out of which the Tribunal ordered half of it to go to the unmarried son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and the half to the two married children in equal shares. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has made an effort to get this sum enhanced by saying that her worth has not been properly weighed but he was remained unable to persuade me to alter that figure. Without commencing on the reasoning of the Tribunal, 1 would maintain the compensation as already awarded by it on account of the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The total sum awarded thus comes to Rs. 2,81,500/-. The liability of the appellant New India Assurance company would have to stay in terms of the policy Exhibit R. 2 at Rs. 10,000/- per injuries/dead person. Thus, the Assurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The remaining liability is that of the owners of the two offending vehicles and their respective drivers, jointly and severally. Besides that, the claimants shall get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till the date of realization of the awarded money. The common award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as afore-spelled out.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2(1986)ACC539',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Insurance;Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '623571'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motion Bench'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.M. Punchhi',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh',
		(int) 2 => 'V.P. Jathar',
		(int) 3 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 4 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 5 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 6 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 7 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 8 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 9 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 10 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 11 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 12 => 'Jathar Rs',
		(int) 13 => 'Jathar Rs',
		(int) 14 => 'D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs',
		(int) 15 => 'MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs',
		(int) 16 => 'Exhibit R. 2',
		(int) 17 => 'Mangla Jathar',
		(int) 18 => 'Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 19 => 'V.P. Jathar',
		(int) 20 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 21 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 22 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 23 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 24 => 'Mangla Prabhakar Jathar',
		(int) 25 => 'Jatharhad',
		(int) 26 => 'Jathar',
		(int) 27 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
		(int) 28 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 29 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 30 => 'Swati V. Ghatpande',
		(int) 31 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 32 => 'Deuskar',
		(int) 33 => 'Vivek Dattatraya',
		(int) 34 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 35 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 36 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 37 => 'D.A. Dattatraya',
		(int) 38 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 39 => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 40 => 'Swati',
		(int) 41 => 'Meena Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 42 => 'D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 43 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar',
		(int) 44 => 'Meena Dattatraya',
		(int) 45 => 'Exhibit R. 2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'the New India Assurance Company Limited',
		(int) 2 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 3 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'the Post Graduate Institute',
		(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'the New India Assurance Company',
		(int) 9 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act',
		(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 11 => 'the Assurance Company',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'the Assurance Company',
		(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 16 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Fault',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
		(int) 22 => 'Post-Graduate Institute',
		(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'the Associated Cement Company',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 29 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 30 => 'New India Assurance',
		(int) 31 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'four',
		(int) 1 => 'four',
		(int) 2 => '343',
		(int) 3 => '346',
		(int) 4 => 'four',
		(int) 5 => '352',
		(int) 6 => '355',
		(int) 7 => 'four',
		(int) 8 => '347',
		(int) 9 => '349',
		(int) 10 => '366',
		(int) 11 => 'eight',
		(int) 12 => '3610',
		(int) 13 => 'two',
		(int) 14 => 'three',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => '20,000/-(iii',
		(int) 17 => '48,000/-Besides',
		(int) 18 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 19 => 'two',
		(int) 20 => 'two',
		(int) 21 => 'one',
		(int) 22 => 'two',
		(int) 23 => '4691.67',
		(int) 24 => '500/-',
		(int) 25 => '1,325/-',
		(int) 26 => '3,000/-',
		(int) 27 => '2000/-',
		(int) 28 => '500/-',
		(int) 29 => '1,700/-',
		(int) 30 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 31 => '1',
		(int) 32 => '3,500/-',
		(int) 33 => '3,500/-',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 36 => '2,500/-',
		(int) 37 => '662.50/-',
		(int) 38 => '7,950/-',
		(int) 39 => '354',
		(int) 40 => '346',
		(int) 41 => 'three',
		(int) 42 => '17',
		(int) 43 => '200/-',
		(int) 44 => '20,000/-',
		(int) 45 => '12,000/-On',
		(int) 46 => '2,000/-------------Total:-',
		(int) 47 => 'three',
		(int) 48 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 49 => '353',
		(int) 50 => '343',
		(int) 51 => '1984:7',
		(int) 52 => 'two',
		(int) 53 => '600/-',
		(int) 54 => '2,700/-',
		(int) 55 => '125/-',
		(int) 56 => '10',
		(int) 57 => '600/-',
		(int) 58 => '3,200/-',
		(int) 59 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 60 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 61 => 'two',
		(int) 62 => '355',
		(int) 63 => '344',
		(int) 64 => '1984:8',
		(int) 65 => '500/-',
		(int) 66 => 'half',
		(int) 67 => '3,000/-',
		(int) 68 => '16',
		(int) 69 => 'half',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => '1',
		(int) 72 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 73 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 74 => 'two'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1984',
		(int) 1 => '1984',
		(int) 2 => '10-9-1982',
		(int) 3 => 'ten months later',
		(int) 4 => '10-7-1983',
		(int) 5 => 'two months later',
		(int) 6 => '1-11-1982',
		(int) 7 => '11 months',
		(int) 8 => '6,000/- per year',
		(int) 9 => 'the 11 months',
		(int) 10 => '11 months',
		(int) 11 => 'annually',
		(int) 12 => 'ten years',
		(int) 13 => '19846',
		(int) 14 => 'about 10 days',
		(int) 15 => '55 years of age',
		(int) 16 => 'the age of 55 years',
		(int) 17 => 'PW 6',
		(int) 18 => '22 years',
		(int) 19 => '60 years of age two months',
		(int) 20 => '6,000/-per year',
		(int) 21 => 'four years',
		(int) 22 => 'about 4 years'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Limine',
		(int) 1 => 'Kurali',
		(int) 2 => 'sums:(i',
		(int) 3 => 'Employee',
		(int) 4 => 'Bompay'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1.40 p.m.'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 3 => '12 per cent'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'North'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW 5'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ph.D.',
		(int) 1 => 'Ph.D.'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '623571',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar     Rs. 82,000/-
(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.
     Jathar                                   Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.
      Dattatraya Deuskar                      Rs. 60,000/-
(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. Meena
     Dattatraya Deuskar                       Rs. 48,000/-;For Medical expenses                       Rs.  1,000/-
For pain, suffering and loss of amenities
under the head of 'General Damages'        Rs. 12,000/-
On account of permanent disability of
teeth and disfigurement of face            Rs.  5,000/-
For the period during which Mrs. Jathar
had to employ the maid servant             Rs.  2,000/-
                                           ------------
                               Total:-      Rs. 20,000/-',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-05-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Punchhi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Punchhi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.A common award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on four claim applications. The dissatisfied claimants have filed four appeals being F.A.O. No. 343 to 346 of 1984. Correspondingly, four appeals being F.A.Os. Nos. 352 to 355 have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited being aggrieved against the apportionment and fixation of liability. There were yet another set of four corresponding appeals preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, being F.A.Os. Nos. 347 to 349 and 366 of 1984 which were dismissed by the Motion Bench in Limine. This judgment would thus dispose of the aforesaid eight appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A taxi bearing No. CHZ-158 was on its way on 10-9-1982 to Chandigarh from Kurali. The inmates thereof, besides its driver, were V.P. Jathar and his wife Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, the latter's sister Meena Dattatraya Deuskar and her husband D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. At 1.40 p.m. while on road, this taxi collided head on with bus No. PUB- 3610 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. As a result thereof Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar died at the spot as also Mr. Jathar. Besides the driver Mrs. Jathar survived but she received multiple injuries in the accident. She was removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh where she was medically treated. Thus, on account of the aforesaid accident, Mrs. Jathar file one claim application before the Tribunal, claiming compensation due to the injuries received by her and another, joining with her major son, claim application for the loss and damage suffered by them on account of the death of Mr. Jathar. Additionally, two separate claim applications were filed by three major children of Mr. and Mrs. Deuskar (two being major sons and the third one being a daughter) claiming compensation for the loss of each of their parent. Though the sums claimed were in high figures, the learned Tribunal awarded the following sums:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar Rs. 82,000/-(ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs.Jathar Rs. 20,000/-(iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 60,000/-(iv) On account of the death of Mrs. MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs. 48,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Besides, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The taxi was insured with the New India Assurance Company under Policy cover Exhibit R-2 on the record, whereunder it had assumed liability in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in terms thereof its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per passenger. Since the Tribunal had recorded a finding which is flexible with regard to the nature of liability and apportionment the Assurance Company, claiming relief, is keen to have it clarified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal has found that the liability was composite. Yet, in the same breath, it has held that 40 per cent negligence was that of the bus and 60 per cent that of the taxi. Now, these two theories obviously do not go well with each other. The apportionment of liability would only arise in the case of contributory negligence. The effort of the Assurance Company on the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both the drivers, is to have its liability reduced in the terms of its policy Exhibit R. 2 and admitted its liability at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per claim, shifting the remaining liability on the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus. The claimants, however, are aggrieved for the award of lesser sums than claimed. In any case, neither party is disputing the happening of the accident and the liability of the respective vehicles, leaving apart of the war of words indulged in by the two respective driver so the offending vehicles, one blaming the other absolving himself of the liability. Still the only point which deserves to be settled is what is the rightful compensation due to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. These two appeals relate to the claim of Mrs. Mangla Jathar and her major son Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar on account of the death of V.P. Jathar. It has been established that the deceased was the Chief Regional Manager of the State Bank of India at Pune on the date of his death. He had come to the North in order to have a holiday enjoying his leave travel concession, for he was nearing the age of superannuation and expecting to retire ten months later on 10-7-1983. At the relevant time, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4691.67 per mensem. Had he died two months later, he would have come within the ambit of the Employee's Mutual Welfare Scheme which came into force on 1-11-1982 and, in that event, beneficially, his widow would have been entitled to pension at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. Besides, if he had lived and retired from service, he would have drawn a pension of Rs. 1,325/- per mensem. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal, taking these into account, took the view that, while in service, the deceased could be expected to be giving to his wife a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem towards his upkeep and the upkeep of his family. On that basis, it was assessed that the dependency of the widow (for, the major son was independent and not dependent on them) was to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per mensem. Since the deceased was expected to serve for 11 months more, it was thus calculated that his widow had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-. For the after period, it was supposedly held that, out of the pension of Rs. 1,325/-per mensem when received, the deceased would have paid a sum of Rs. 500/- per mensem to his wife for maintenance. Since that would amount to Rs. 6,000/- per year, the dependency was expected Rs. 82,000/-. Fault has been found with this reasoning. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant have job and a life spent with material satisfaction, he could not be expected to be spending nearly Rs. 1,700/- per mensem on himself and sparing just Rs. 3,000/- to his wife, out of which his personal expenditure was again to be deducted at Rs. 1,000/-. Some alteration in that figure has been pleaded for the 11 months he was to remain in service. It has been urged that thereafter when the deceased would have retired, it cannot be expected that he would sit idle, for he was an experienced and qualified man much in demand in the circles in which he had spent his life. And even if it be taken that he would have sat at home and enjoyed his pension, then it cannot be said that, at that retired stage, he would have any worth while personal expenses to keep apart and that the pension of Rs. 1325/- per mensem was expected to be shared equally by him and his wife 1 find enough force in these arguments. I see no reason why the statement of Mrs. Jathar be not believed when she says that her husband was giving her sum of Rs. 3,500/- per mensem for household expenses. It is not essential that whatever she has said must necessarily be reduced and brought it down to Rs. 3,000/- as held by the learned Tribunal. To my mind, her word should be enough to hold that the deceased was giving her a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for household expanses which she and the deceased shared towards the upkeep of the house, their clothing, food and expenses for social activities. Taking a cumulative view of the whole thing, 1 would feel that the food and clothing which were personal to the deceased, would not have exceeded more than Rs. 1,000/- per mensem and since Mrs. Jathar is alive, her dependency for the upkeep of her day of life would remain at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. Consequently, for 11 months while the deceased was to be in service, her dependency is calculated at Rs. 27,500/-. As hinted earlier, when the deceased would have become a pensioner, the dependency of Mrs. Jathar could, in no case, be less than Rs. 662.50/- which annually would mean Rs. 7,950/- which can be rounded up as Rs. 8,000/- per year. For ten years, on the basis as conceived by the Tribunal, Mrs. Jathar should have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Thus, the total claim which comes to be awarded Rs. 1,07,500/-. It is settled at this figure. F.A.O. Nos. 354 and 346 of 1984</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. These appeals relate to the injuries received by Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar. Undeniably, she had a compound fracture of both the bones of her left forearm which had to be plastered. Undeniably, she lost three teeth and her lip was cut. She remained about 10 days in the Post-Graduate Institute as an indoor patient and thereafter had been receiving . treatment not only at the Post-Graduate Institute at Chandigarh but at hospitals in Bompay. She had to receive plastic surgery to mend her lip and thereafter had to use dentures for, in the meantime, she had to have her other 17 teeth extracted. On the date of the accident, she was 55 years of age and in that accident lost her husband. Her claim is for normal damages on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering, disfigurement of face etc. as also for special damages. In her statement as PW 5 she has stated that before the accident she was doing her household work but thereafter she had to employ a maid servant at the expense of Rs. 200/- inclusive of food and clothing. The Tribunal awarded her a cumulative sum of Rs. 20,000/-, break-up of which is under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-For pain, suffering and loss of amenitiesunder the head of 'General Damages' Rs. 12,000/-On account of permanent disability ofteeth and disfigurement of face Rs. 5,000/-For the period during which Mrs. Jatharhad to employ the maid servant Rs. 2,000/-------------Total:- Rs. 20,000/-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is nobody's case that Mrs. Jathar suffered any disability on account of the fracture of her forearm. The only permanent disability is with regard to the loss of three teeth and slight disfigurement of her lip at the age of 55 years. It cannot be said that she could have retained her teeth much longer. It is not her case that she had to keep a maid servant for the loss of any limb or that she was unable to do her household chores any longer. Bereft of evidence in that regard, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages on account of the treatment. No evidence has been pointed out to me to the contrary except suggestion that the expenditure would be much mere. Keeping all these factors into consideration and the possibility of any error having been crept in all these counts, I would enhance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.Os. Nos. 353 and 343 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. These cases pertain to the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. He was a retired man and his pension was Rs. 478/- per mensem. A claim petition, as said before, has been filed by his two major sons, namely, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, and a daughter named Mrs. Swati V. Ghatpande. Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar was dependent on him, for he was a student, though for doing Ph.D., he was himself drawing a stipend of Rs. 600/- per mensem which obviously must have been time bound. On the date of the accident, Mr. Deuskar, the deceased, had been re-employed by a private concern and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,700/- per mensem. Thus, his total emoluments on the date of his death worked out about Rs. 3,200/-. His younger son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar PW 6 was unmarried and aged 22 years. If the deceased had been alive, he would have worked and intended to work at least to see his young son settled. The deceased was a Civil Engineer and had experience as such having retired from the Associated Cement Company on the attainment of 60 years of age two months prior to his death. The learned tribunal has accepted the evidence of his re-employment and has yet determined the dependency of the younger son at Rs 250/- per mensem and Rs. 125/- per mensem each for the elder married son and the daughter. The dependency of Rs. 6,000/-per year has been given a multiplier of 10 to arrive at Rs. 60,000/- as compensation out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar. I fail to see how such a figure could have been arrived at merely in this manner without considering other facts. Though the younger son was doing his Ph.D. and drawing a stipend from the Government at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensem but that by itself did not mean that it was a regular income. It at best meant that the deceased had not to earn it for his younger son but, all the same, it was expected of the deceased to have remained in re-employment for at least another period of four years to see his son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar settled in life. Therefore, I would determine the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, the younger son of the deceased, in the manner that out of Rs. 3,200/- per mensem which the deceased was expected to earn, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem could safely have been earmarked for the education and settlement of his younger son for about 4 years. Thus, on this count, I would enhance the dependency of Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar alone by Rs. 36,000/-over and above Rs. 12,000/- (which is included in Rs. 30,000/-) what the Tribunal has awarded. The remaining sum the deceased was expected to have spent on himself and his wife if he had been alive. These payments are thus allowed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 96,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, out of which a sum of Rs. 66,000/- shall go to Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar claimant and the remaining sum of Rs. 30,000/- remains divided between the two other claimants, namely, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar and Mrs. Swati.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">F.A.O. No. 355 and 344 of 1984:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. These appeals pertain to the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar. She is the wife of D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar and was keeping house for him, doing household work. She had no income of her own. The Tribunal assessed her worth as household lady in terms of money at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem and deducting half of it on the expectation on that she would be spending that amount on her maintenance etc., it put the loss of the children on account of her death at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem, i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per annum. To that, it gave a multiplier of 16 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 48,000/-, out of which the Tribunal ordered half of it to go to the unmarried son Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar and the half to the two married children in equal shares. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has made an effort to get this sum enhanced by saying that her worth has not been properly weighed but he was remained unable to persuade me to alter that figure. Without commencing on the reasoning of the Tribunal, 1 would maintain the compensation as already awarded by it on account of the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The total sum awarded thus comes to Rs. 2,81,500/-. The liability of the appellant New India Assurance company would have to stay in terms of the policy Exhibit R. 2 at Rs. 10,000/- per injuries/dead person. Thus, the Assurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The remaining liability is that of the owners of the two offending vehicles and their respective drivers, jointly and severally. Besides that, the claimants shall get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the applications till the date of realization of the awarded money. The common award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as afore-spelled out.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2(1986)ACC539',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Insurance;Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '623571'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Motion Bench

PERSON: M.M. Punchhi, Chandigarh, V.P. Jathar, Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, Meena Dattatraya Deuskar, D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, Deuskar, Jathar, Jathar, Jathar, Jathar, Deuskar, Jathar Rs, Jathar Rs, D.A.Dattatraya Deuskar Rs, MeenaDattatraya Deuskar Rs, Exhibit R. 2, Mangla Jathar, Ravinder Prabhakar Jathar, V.P. Jathar, Jathar, Jathar, Jathar, Jathar, Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, Jatharhad, Jathar, D.A. Dattatraya, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, Swati V. Ghatpande, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Deuskar, Vivek Dattatraya, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, D.A. Dattatraya, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Vinay Dattatraya Deuskar, Swati, Meena Dattatraya Deuskar, D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar, Vivek Dattatraya Deuskar, Meena Dattatraya, Exhibit R. 2

ORG: the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the New India Assurance Company Limited, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the Post Graduate Institute, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the New India Assurance Company, the Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal, the Assurance Company, Tribunal, the Assurance Company, Tribunal, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the State Bank of India, Tribunal, Fault, Tribunal, Tribunal, Post-Graduate Institute, Post-Graduate Institute, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Associated Cement Company, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, New India Assurance, Tribunal

CARDINAL: four, four, 343, 346, four, 352, 355, four, 347, 349, 366, eight, 3610, two, three, two, 20,000/-(iii, 48,000/-Besides, 10,000/-, two, two, one, two, 4691.67, 500/-, 1,325/-, 3,000/-, 2000/-, 500/-, 1,700/-, 1,000/-, 1, 3,500/-, 3,500/-, 1, 1,000/-, 2,500/-, 662.50/-, 7,950/-, 354, 346, three, 17, 200/-, 20,000/-, 12,000/-On, 2,000/-------------Total:-, three, 1,000/-, 353, 343, 1984:7, two, 600/-, 2,700/-, 125/-, 10, 600/-, 3,200/-, 1,000/-, 30,000/-, two, 355, 344, 1984:8, 500/-, half, 3,000/-, 16, half, two, 1, 10,000/-, 10,000/-, two

DATE: 1984, 1984, 10-9-1982, ten months later, 10-7-1983, two months later, 1-11-1982, 11 months, 6,000/- per year, the 11 months, 11 months, annually, ten years, 19846, about 10 days, 55 years of age, the age of 55 years, PW 6, 22 years, 60 years of age two months, 6,000/-per year, four years, about 4 years

GPE: Limine, Kurali, sums:(i, Employee, Bompay

TIME: 1.40 p.m.

ORDINAL: third

MONEY: 10 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 12 per cent

LOC: North

EVENT: PW 5

WORK_OF_ART: Ph.D., Ph.D.

FAC: Vivek Dattatraya Dasukar