Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 416 (RAJ)

Shobha Ram v. Krishna V. Kanat

2004-03-17

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This appeal is against the award dated 11.1.1996 by which the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- in total as compensation to the appellant's mother and tamer of the deceased Bharat Kumar who died in the accident alleged to have been caused by the respondent No. 1 while driving car No. MH-03/B 4972. It is alleged that on 12.2.1994, when Bharat Kumar, along with his mother, was going to attend one festival, respondent No. 1 came in his car and hit Bharat Kumar. Bharat Kumar died in hospital. The claimant's mother and father submitted claim petition alleged that at the time of accident, Bharat Kumar was of the age of six years. He had bright future and he would have earned in due course of time. Because of untimely death to of Bharat Kumar, the claimant's mother and father claimed that Bharat Kumar would have earned at least minimum wages of Rs. 100/- per day and by this way he would have earned Rs. 11,52,000/- in his life time. The claimants claimed Rs. 500/- for taking Bharat Kumar to the hospital from the place of accident to Barmer and Rs. 7001- for bringing back the dead body of Bharat Kumar from hospital to their village. The claimants also claimed Rs. 30,000/- as against funeral expenses. 3. It appears that reply was filed only by the respondent Insurance Co. The Tribunal framed issues and the claimants Shobha Ram appeared in the witness box and produced witnesses. No evidence was produced by any of 1-e respondents. The Tribunal held that Bharat Kumar died in the accident caused by the respondent No. 1 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The Tribunal held that the deceased was of the age of 7-8 years. The Tribunal observed that even in case of no fault liability, as per the relevant law, the claimants were entitled for Rs. 25,000/-. therefore, the amount cannot be less than Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter awarded Rs. 30,000/- to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount is too low. It is also submitted that in case of non-earning person, the courts have awarded Rs. 2 lacs or more compensation. 25,000/-. therefore, the amount cannot be less than Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter awarded Rs. 30,000/- to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount is too low. It is also submitted that in case of non-earning person, the courts have awarded Rs. 2 lacs or more compensation. It is also submitted that in view of the amended provision of law providing Schedule and providing the compensation for the person who are not earning members, the claimants a e entitled for at least Rs. 2 lacs. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Co. vehemently submitted that the accident occurred on 12.2.1994 whereas the relevant provisions of law in the Act of 1988 were amended in the month of November, 1994. Therefore, those provisions cannot be made applicable to the accident which occurred before coming into force of the amended visions. it is also submitted that the boy was of a very tender age and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. 6. I considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties 4o and perused the record. 7. It is clear that the death of Bharat Kumar in the accident caused by the respondent No. 1 cannot be disputed. The only question for consideration in this appeal whether the compensation awarded to the claimants adequate compensation or not. 8. This Court has given several decisions wherein in case of death of young boy and who had no earnings at the relevant time, were awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and this Court did not interfere in the cases where the compensation has been awarded more by the Tribunals. 9. It is true that the amendments were ade in the Act of 1988 in the month of November, 1994 and accident occurred in this case prior to amendment, therefore, strictly speaking the Schedule amended to the Act cannot be applied but at the time it is clear that in the year 1994, when accident occurred, no fault liability was of Rs. 25,000/-. Even if the amended provisions are not applicable, even then it is clear case where the compensation awarded to the claimants on the basis of what should be reasonable compensation is too low. 25,000/-. Even if the amended provisions are not applicable, even then it is clear case where the compensation awarded to the claimants on the basis of what should be reasonable compensation is too low. The time has proved that the earning capacity of all, in cities as well as in villages, increased substantially and that benefit must go to the dependents or beneficiaries of the victim. Since, there is no barometer to assess the compensation in this case, therefore, it will be proper to award compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as lump-sum amount to the claimants. Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum but it is required to be reduced to 9% per annum. 10. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. It is held that the appellants are entitled to the claim of the Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is made clear that the excess interest, which claimants have received from the respondent Insurance Co. or any other respondents, shall be adjusted appropriately in the calculation of the total claim with interest.Appeal Allowed. *******