Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2468 (RAJ)

Ayodha Bai v. Murli Lal

2008-11-10

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Hon ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the appeal and after considering their submissions, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. (2). The appeal is admitted. The contesting respondent is represented by their counsel. (3). With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. (4). The legal representative of deceased Gopal who died in motor accident which took place on 4th August, 1997, have preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the compensation amount under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aklera, vide its impugned award dated 5th December, 2002 allowed total compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 22.9.1997 till the date of realization. (5). The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that AW 1 Mst. Ayodha Bai wife of deceased Gopal herself is physically handicapped lady, therefore, looking to this special circumstance of this case the 1/3rd amount, deducted on account of personal expenses, may not be deducted and the amount of compensation awarded in the present matter may be enhanced accordingly. So far age of the appellant and multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. (6). The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present matter relates to compensation in respect of death of Gopal and award has to be passed only in respect of his death looking to his income and age. So far as submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ayodha Bai wife of the deceased is also physically handicapped is concerned, the same is not relevant for purpose of the award of compensation in the present matter. It is further contended that even if this argument is considered for the sake of argument, there is no documentary evidence on record in support of this contention. (7). I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and also certified copies of the statements of AW. 1 Aydoha Bai, AW 2 Babu Lal, AW. (7). I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and also certified copies of the statements of AW. 1 Aydoha Bai, AW 2 Babu Lal, AW. 3 Hazari Lal and AW 4 Pana Bai referred by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments. The learned Tribunal while considering issue No. 5 has referred Postmortem report of deceased Gopal wherein his age was mentioned as 45 years and the same was determined as age of deceased. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the tribunal has considered the statement of Mst. Ayodha Bai wherein she stated that deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but in absence of any documentary evidence, learned Tribunal assessed him notional annual income as Rs. 15,000/-. The said finding of the learned Tribunal has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. His only submission is that A.W. 1 Ayodha Bai wife of deceased Gopal herself is physically handicapped lady, as stated by her in her statement recorded by the Tribunal on 6th July 2001, therefore, 1/3rd amount deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased, may not be deducted from the amount of compensation and compensation be enhanced. The learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed that no medical certificate is available on record to show that AW1 Ayodha Bai is physically handicapped lady. Even otherwise said factor is not relevant for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of death of Gopal who died in Motor accident. Learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of deceased. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 in view of age of the deceased and awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 10,000 x 15) towards loss of income. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- to parents under the head "love and affection". Thus, learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/- in favour of the claimants. (8). After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. (9). Thus, learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/- in favour of the claimants. (8). After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. (9). In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.