Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2132 (RAJ)

Premwati v. Rudrapal Singh

2008-09-10

GUMAN SINGH

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Both the parties are agreed for final disposal of these appeals at the admission stage. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appeal No.630/08 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar vide judgment dated 2.11.2007 whereby a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- was awarded to the appellants by way of compensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Chandra caused in the accident. The appeal No.159/2008 has been filed by the Insurance Company by way of cross appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimants have come in appeal for enhancement of compensation as also for interest on the amount awarded. The cross appeal has been filed on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and deserves to be scaled down. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.7500/- per month on the basis of the amount deposited in recurring deposits as well as the amount of Rs.620/-spent by the deceased on tuition fees of the children. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the deceased was shop keeper and was dealing in tiles and he had an excellent earning out of business and after spending on the family also spared the amount deposited in the recurring deposits and, as such, income assessed by the learned Tribunal should have been assessed on higher side. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess the income on the actual earning of the deceased and has mainly based its finding on the basis of amount alleged to have been saved by the deceased by depositing the same on the recurring deposit accounts. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess the income on the actual earning of the deceased and has mainly based its finding on the basis of amount alleged to have been saved by the deceased by depositing the same on the recurring deposit accounts. It is further submitted that the amount alleged to have been deposited does not indicate that it was Rs.3800/- per month as the details of the amount deposited and narrated by the learned Tribunal under issue no.2 does not relate to any one month but it refers to different months and years and as such the total amount arrived at by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.3800/- as monthly saving does not indicate the actual saving per month by the deceased. 7. In view of rival contentions of both the parties and after going through the award, it is also revealed that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess the earning of the deceased on the basis of his business or his occupation and the same has been assessed only on the basis of what is alleged to have been saved by him, that too without taking into account the aspect that the amount of Rs.3800/- which is stated to be per month saving is not indicative of the single month. Therefore, in view of totality of facts & circumstances of the case, the matter deserves to be remanded back for fresh decision so as to accord opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to decide the matter in right perspective. 8. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & award dated 2.11.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision on all issues after hearing both the parties and leading evidence if any. Both the parties shall remain present before the learned Tribunal on 23.10.2008. Thus with the aforesaid observations, both the appeals stand disposed of.