Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1920 (RAJ)

Lodi v. Om Singh

2005-07-27

VINEET KOTHARI

body2005
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This appeal is directed against the impugned award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaur dated 211.1993 deciding the Claim Case No. 3/1989, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 31,000/-on the death of Godharam, 13 years of age in an accident which occurred on 011.1988 at 5.30 P.M when the truck No. RJE 3255 being driven by the respondent No. 1 Om Singh and owned by respondent No. 2 Om Prakash, hit the cycle on which the two children were riding. .2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 31,000/-without awarding any amount under the head of “possible future earnings” for the child, who would have been major after five years of his unfortunate fatal accident. .3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited before me following Judgment s:- .(1) Bal Mukund Aangal & Anr. vs. Naravin Ram & Ors., 2005 RAR 52 (Raj.) .(2) Duda & Ors. vs. Mohan & Ors., 2005 RAR 36 (Raj.) .(3) Shobha Ram & Ors. vs. Krishna V. Kant & Ors., 2004 RAR 242 (Raj.) .(4) Prabhu & Anr. vs. Raghuveer Singh & Ors., 2005 RAR 215 (Raj.) 4. In all the Judgment s cited before me to which nothing contrary could be pointed out by the opposite side, the Court has enhanced the compensation substantially from the range of Rs. 25,000/-to 31,000/-to Rs. 1,00,000/-to 2,50,000/-in the cases pertaining to non-earning members i.e., children of different age groups. 5. Mr. Johari, appearing for the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 only submits that since the accident has occurred on 011.1988, prior to the date of coming into force of new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force on 01.07.1989, the liability of the Insurance Company under the statutory limits may be restricted upto Rs. 50,000/-. He relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors., reported in 2002 (2) SCC 278 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors., reported in 2004 (2) SCC 370 , for this purpose. 6. While, there is no dispute that the liability of the Insurance Company in accordance with Section 95(2) of the old Act, which would govern the field in the present case as the accident is prior to the date of coming into force of the new Act. 6. While, there is no dispute that the liability of the Insurance Company in accordance with Section 95(2) of the old Act, which would govern the field in the present case as the accident is prior to the date of coming into force of the new Act. On the other hand, there is nothing, which would prevent the enhancement of amount of compensation given by the Tribunal which has to paid by the other respondents over and above the statutory liability of the Insurance Company. 7. Therefore, respectfully following the Judgment s cited on both the sides, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-would be substituted for the award of Rs. 31,000/-as given by the Tribunal and the rate of interest of 6% and 15% if the payment is not made within stipulated period, would be substituted by flat rate of simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. To the extent indicated above, the award of the Tribunal shall stand modified. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.