Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Smt. Rana Ahmad v. Mangal @ Mangal Chand

2006-01-10

N.K.JAIN

body2006
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are directed against the Judgment /award dated 06.08.1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 52/1992 and 221/1993, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,56,000/-in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 52/1992 for the death of Jai Singh, who died in motor vehicular accident, which took place on 111.1987 and Rs. 30,000/-for loss of damage to the property in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 221/1993. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellants contended that in MAC Case No. 221/1992 filed by Rana Ahmad, the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting Rs. 15,000/-for sale of scrape of the vehicle, without any evidence on record. He contended that he claimed total compensation for damage to the property as Rs. 45,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation may be enhanced from Rs. 30,000/-to Rs. 45,000/-. 4. Sofar as in MACT Case No. 52/1992 filed by Smt. Sayar Kanwar, the contention of learned Counsel for the claimant appellants is that the deceased was low paid employee, therefore, no deduction should have been made for personal expenses. He referred in Ramanand vs. Lalit Sharma, 1992 (2) ACJ 71. He further contended that the learned Tribunal did not award interest on the amount of compensation and passed only a conditional order that the amount of compensation be paid within a period of two months, in case the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of two months, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He contended that the amount of compensation was paid by the respondents within time, therefore, they could not receive any interest thereon. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation awarded in both the cases is just and reasonable and no interference is called for in these appeals. 6. I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal 7. Sofar as the appeal bearing No. 764/1993 filed on behalf of Smt. Rana Ahmad, arising out of the Case No. 221/1993 is concerned. 6. I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal 7. Sofar as the appeal bearing No. 764/1993 filed on behalf of Smt. Rana Ahmad, arising out of the Case No. 221/1993 is concerned. I find that the learned Tribunal considered the evidence on record while awarding the amount of compensation for loss of damages to the property as Rs. 30,000/-. It was an admitted fact from the evidence of the claimants itself that she purchased the disputed vehicle for Rs. 32,000/-The learned Tribunal considered that the survey report is not proved in the case. The surveyor, who surveyed the vehicle was not examined on behalf of the claimant. The photo-graphs of the damages car were considered by the Tribunal, thereafter, he came to a conclusion that vehicle can be sold out for Rs. 15,000/-therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/-in this regard. I am satisfied with the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned Tribunal. 8. So far as the appeal bearing No. 765/1993 filed on behalf of Smt. Sayar Kanwar, arising out of MACT Case No. 52/1992 is concerned. I find that the learned Tribunal considered that no documentary evidence was produced in respect of monthly income of the deceased, which was stated to be Rs. 1,200/-per month. The employer was also not examined in the matter. This is a case relating to the year 1987. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 900/-and after deducting 1/3rd amount assessed the dependency amount as Rs. 600/-per month and looking to the age of deceased applied the multiplier of 30 and awarded compensation for loss of estate as Rs. 2,16,000/-The amount under other heads were also allowed. The total compensation of Rs. 2,56,000/-was awarded. After considering the reasoning of the Tribunal, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,56,000/- awarded in the present case, appears to be just and reasonable and no interference is called for in this regard. 9. So far as the interest on amount of compensation is concerned. 2,56,000/- awarded in the present case, appears to be just and reasonable and no interference is called for in this regard. 9. So far as the interest on amount of compensation is concerned. I find that as and when the amount of compensation is awarded normally the Tribunal allows the interest on it, but in the present case, the Tribunal passed a conditional order, about the interest to the effect that in case the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of two months, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. I find that in the interest of justice, the amount of compensation should have carried interest without any condition. Therefore, I allow both the appeals in part and it is directed that the appellants of both the appeals will be entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment/deposit of the amount thereof . The award of the Tribunal to that extent is modified. 10. Consequently both these appeals are partly allowed. The award of the claim Tribunal is upheld, so far as passing of amount of compensation is concerned, but it is directed that the respondent will make the payment of interest, on the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment/deposit thereof . No order as to costs.