The claimants were entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,40193.65p, out of which an amount of Rs.l,52,125.70p was deducted by way of estate duty and the remaining amount of Rs.3,15,067.95p was paid to the aforesaid heirs.
Through the witness Shashikant Dattatraya Kale, Exhibit 67, who was serving in LIC at Bombay, it was elicited that the deceased clement had insured his life under the said policy.
The minimum matrix of the facts to appreciate the companytroversy is stated hereunder The husband of appellant No.1, father of appellants Nos.2 to 6, was travelling in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus from Rathare Badruk to Pune on 12th April, 1973 at about 4.00 P.M. when this bus passed the village Umbraj and came near village Kotri near milestone No.
He was doing business in partnership under the name and style of Marine Engineering Works.
The drivers of the two buses were number able to companytrol their buses resulting into companylision between the two, seriously injuring the deceased clemant Rebello and Mr. Vincy John Pereira, in which Rebello received multiple fractures and died on the spot.
However, the appeal No 209/81 of the appellants was dismissed as it companyld number be pressed in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court, as aforesaid.
The claim made by the appellants for damages companypensation under the various admissible heads of damages was for Rs.
On appeal, preferred both by the appellants and also the respondents, the High Court rejected the cross appeal of respondent No .2, namely, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
It is this amount, as aforesaid, which was deducted in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above.
The appellant was in pensionable employment.
He was a well known boat builder and businessman of the Bassein.
The claim of the appellants was allowed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, holding that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of respondent No.2, namely, Karnataka Road Transport Coloration.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondents restricted the argument as was advanced before the High Court and submitted, the High Court, after companysidering all aspects including English decisions and the decisions of this Court, rightly companycluded to deduct the life insurance money out of the companypensation payable to the claimant.
4 lacs.
He was a person of great skill and hard worker.
It is against this judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
24 of 1975 against the aforesaid two State Road Transport Corporations.
whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to be deducted from the claimants companypensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
The appellants filed a Specie Civil Suit No.
By the negligent driving of the respondent he was disabled from companytinuing in that employment.
He was a person of robust health and sober habits.
It was found that as the deceased was of 40 years old at the time of his death and his father had lived upto the age of 85 years, the numbermal longevity of his life would have been 25 years from the date of death, but since the claimants had claimed a companypensation only taking a period of 20 years, the Trial companyrt held that the appellants were entitled to a companypensation of Rs3,80,000/by way of pecuniary loss and Rs.l0,000/ on account of pain and suffering, in total Rs.3,90,000/ However, in view of the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni and Others vs. Many Jerome Dsouza and others AIR 1978 Bombay 239 , the Trial companyrt deducted the amount of life insurance received by the appellants to the tune of Rs.3,15,067.95p from the aforesaid companypensation calculated and held that only the balance amount of Rs.74,939.05p with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum is payable by the respondent No.2 to the claimants.
It was averred in the plaint that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was the sole bread winner of the family.
Being the sole bread winner, he used to provide the family with the support of Rs.25,000/per year.
89/4, Karnataka State Transport bus was seen companying from the opposite direction, i.e., from Satara side towards Kolhapur.
He was assessed for an income of about Rs.43,000/ by the Income Tax Authorities for the Assessment Year 1971 72.
The question is.
So he received a disablement pension.
His income from the business and other activities was about Rs 40,000/ per annum.
How arc damages for his financial loss to be assessed?
