Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 425 (RAJ)

Vikram Singh v. Baldev Singh

2009-02-09

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—The learned counsel for both the sides agreed for final disposal of the appeal at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant Vikram Singh, brother dependent of deceased Vasudeo Singh against the judgment/award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur city, Distt. Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated 20.11.2004 whereby claim petition for awarding compensation was dismissed on the ground that he was brother of deceased and was not dependent on him while the grandparents of the deceased were awarded sum of Rs.1,76,500/- by way of compensation. 4. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation to the appellant on the ground that he was brother of deceased. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the fact that the parents of the deceased as well as present appellant had already expired long ago and the appellant was totally dependent on the deceased as he had only brother to support him. It is further submitted that the age of appellant is stated to be 21 years but he was unemployed and his school expenses were borne by the deceased. It is further submitted that on account of death of deceased, the appellant has rendered without any subsistence as he is not likely to get gainful employment in view of the present state of unemployment, there is no likelihood of getting any gainful employment and that the maximum age prescribed by the State Government for employment in the Government job has been fixed at 33 years. The learned counsel has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and anr. (1987 Supreme Court on Accident Claims, 1072) in support of his case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 7. (1987 Supreme Court on Accident Claims, 1072) in support of his case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the law is well settled that younger brother and sisters are legal heirs under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act and claim compensation on account of death of elder brother on the basis of their dependency. In this case, it has come on record that the parents of the deceased and present appellant had expired long back while they were children. It is further revealed that schooling expenses were borne by the deceased and in view of submission of learned counsel for the appellant, it is revealed that employment chances of the appellant are not so bright and he has to struggle for gainful employment and it appears that in view of this position, State Government has also fixed the higher limit of age in getting job at 33 years, therefore, in view of the fact that the appellant is found to be dependent of deceased and that he would be needing Rs.1000/- per year for his bare subsistence. Thus he deserves compensation for his subsistence for 10 years amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only). 8. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall also get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) by way of compensation jointly and severally from the respondents found liable by the Tribunal from the date of appeal i.e. 8.12.2004, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith.