Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2230 (RAJ)

Sukhhi v. Jagdish

2005-08-24

J.R.GOYAL

body2005
Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-Since, both appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment . 2. The appeals are directed against the common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa on 210.2002 in Claim Case Nos. 343/1998 (72/1992) and 134/1992 (2/1994). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for the losses suffered by them due to death of Nathulal, aged 45 years, and Khema, aged 30 years, in the accident which took place on 22.03.1992 due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 14C 633, by which they were travelling. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation, these appeals have been filed by the dependants of the deceased. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. Appeal No.458/2003 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants contended that deceased Nathulal was earning about Rs. 3,000/-per month from agriculture and business of selling vegetable, but the learned Tribunal had assessed his yearly income only Rs. 15,000/-,which is too much on the lower side. It is also contended that a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/-has been awarded on account of ‘loss of consortium’ to the widow of Nathulal and nothing has been awarded on account of ‘loss of love and affection’ to the other dependants of the deceased, which is contrary to law. 6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the claimant appellants could not prove about the actual monthly income of deceased Nathulal nor could they produce any proof regarding deceased Nathulals earning from the business of selling vegetable. Thus, on notional basis ‘Loss of dependency’ was rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation to the claimants keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 8. On a perusal of the impugned award, I find that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the yearly income of deceased Nathulal considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 8. On a perusal of the impugned award, I find that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the yearly income of deceased Nathulal considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. So far the amount of consortium awarded by the learned Tribunal to the widow of the deceased Nathulal is concerned, I am of the view that it should have been Rs. 10,000/-instead of Rs. 5,000/-, and under the head of ‘loss of love and affection the other claimants should have been awarded Rs. 5,000/-each. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,90,000/-instead of Rs. 1,60,000/- . 9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Claimant-appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 1,90,000/ as compensation. They are also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the claim application. Appeal No.462/2003 10. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants contended that deceased Khema was earning about Rs. 3,000/-per month from agriculture, but the learned Tribunal had assessed his yearly income only Rs.15,000/-, which is too much on the lower side. It is also contended that a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-has been awarded on account of ‘loss of consortium’ to the widow of Khema and nothing has been awarded on account of ‘loss of love and affection’ to the dependants of the deceased, which is contrary to law. 11. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the claimant- appellants could not prove about the actual monthly income of deceased Khema. Thus, on notional basis loss of dependency was rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation to the claimants keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 12. I have considered the rival contentions. 13. On a perusal of the impugned award I find that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the yearly income of deceased Khema considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. So far the amount of consortium awarded by the learned Tribunal to the widow of the deceased Khema is concerned, I am of the view that it should have been Rs. 10,000/-instead of Rs. 5,000/-, and under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ the other claimants should have been awarded Rs. 5,000/-each. So far the amount of consortium awarded by the learned Tribunal to the widow of the deceased Khema is concerned, I am of the view that it should have been Rs. 10,000/-instead of Rs. 5,000/-, and under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ the other claimants should have been awarded Rs. 5,000/-each. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,15,000/-instead of Rs. 1,90,000/-. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Claimant-appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 2,15,000/-as compensation. They are also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the claim application.