Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 456 (RAJ)

Usha v. Resham Singh

2004-03-25

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 16.08.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter referred to) in MACT Case No. 140/2001, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,33,000/-in favour of appellants and against the respondents. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Perused the Judgment and award impugned. 2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is further contended that the monthly income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is on lower side. 3. On 21st June, 1995, Manoj Kumar aged about 30 years died in a motor vehicle accident which took place in the area of village Khara on Bikaner-Ganganagar national highway. The Tribunal held the driver of truck No. PAT 3141 negligent for the said accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,33,000/-in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. The case as set up by the claimants before the Tribunal is that deceased Manoj Kumar was a compositor in Balaji Printing Press for some times and thereafter he was engaged in others printing press as a compositor. No salary proof from the employer was filed. The claimants did not produce a witness from the employer. AW. 4 Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased stated that the deceased was a compositor in the press. He was earlier in a other press and before to that in Jagdamba Printing Press. He was paid monthly income @ Rs. 2,500/-per month by Jagdamba Printing Press by its owner Jai Prakash. He further stated that presently deceased was working with Adarsh Printing Press by which he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. He stated that the documents of the printing press used to be destroyed and, therefore, failed to produce any certificate of income from other printing press. However, he produced a certificate of Jagdamba Printing Press showing his monthly income as Rs. 2,500/-. Though no witness was produced from Jagdamba Printing Press alleged to be the employer of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500/-. However, taking into account future prospects of the deceased the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 4,000/-per month. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom i.e., Rs. 2,500/-. Though no witness was produced from Jagdamba Printing Press alleged to be the employer of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500/-. However, taking into account future prospects of the deceased the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 4,000/-per month. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom i.e., Rs. 1,400/-for the personal living expenses of the deceased himself the monthly dependency has been determined as Rs. 2,600/-which was multiplied by 12. Thus, annual dependency worked out to Rs. 31,200/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e., 30 years, the annual dependency was multiplied by 16 years purchase factor. Thus, loss of income works out to be Rs. 4,96,000/-to which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/-for funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/-as consortium and Rs. 5,000/-each to the minor sons and daughters of the deceased for loss of love and affection etc. Thus, total compensation works out to be Rs. 5,33,000/-. The Tribunal has accepted the case as set up by the claimants, and has also taken into consideration future prospects of the deceased while determining his monthly income as also the dependency. The annual dependency was multiplied by purchase factor of 16 years. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side, on the contrary the Tribunal has taken into account all relevant factors which are necessary for determination of the compensation in the case of road accident. Though, there was no certainty of the job of the deceased as he was not in regular employment but the Tribunal has taken into account the future prospects and the income of Rs. 2,500/ -per month was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/-per month. The annual contribution to the claimants also cannot be said to be on lower side. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as personal living expenses which is just and proper in the absence of any other evidence on record. Viewed from any angle, compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side. 4. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded is either inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate or too low. Hence, calls for no interference. 5. 4. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded is either inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate or too low. Hence, calls for no interference. 5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.