Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1852 (RAJ)

Kiran Devi v. P. N. Handa

2011-08-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 25.10.2002 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 1541/1997 whereby claim petition of the claimants was allowed and they have been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- due to death of Raju @ Lavesh in road accident alleged to be occurred on 4.8.1997 at 12.45 p.m. when he was coming from Sanganer towards Durgapura turn and suddenly a truck bearing registration No. HR-47-5167 came from the front and collided with the bicycle driven by the deceased. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. No-body appeared on behalf of the appellant claimants today and hence, the case was heard on behalf of the insurance company. It may be mentioned that earlier the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat on various dates i.e. on 3.2.2007, 24.2.2007 and 7.4.2007, but the matter could not be compromised. In the appeal filed by the claimants it was stated that as per the statement of AW.2 Kailash, the deceased used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month at Ram Ratan Pandey's Printing Arts. Rama Ratan Pandey in his statement also stated that the deceased was earning salary as per the salary certificate Ex.10. It was stated that there is no rebuttal by the respondents as regards the income of the deceased. The MACT has not properly considered the age and the earnings earned by the deceased and only on approximation of age and income awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/-. The basis of awarding this amount was not disclosed in the award. The MACT has also not awarded any amount towards consortium and loss of income in future. The interest was also awarded at the rate of 9% per annum but it should be 18 per cent per annum. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- as considered by the parties in the Lok Adalat. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants stated in the memo of appeal and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for he insurance company. In my view the award of Rs. 2,65,000/- as considered by the parties in the Lok Adalat. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants stated in the memo of appeal and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for he insurance company. In my view the award of Rs. 2,65,000/- for the death of Raju @ Lavesh is just and proper as it was approximation suggested in the Lok Adalat before the MACT. Since decision in the Lok Adalat could not be materialized, the MACT on the basis of the age and income of the deceased assessed the quantum of amount awarded in the sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- approximately. Since it was a lump sum amount awarded by the MACT, there is no question of awarding any further amount towards any other heads. It may also be mentioned that even at he appeal stage the mater was taken up in the Lok Adalat but the counsel did not agree for compromise and hence the case could not be settled. In my view looking to the age of the deceased and looking to his income the assessment made by the MACT, cannot be said to be inappropriate. The findings arrived at by the MACT, stands confirmed and do not call for any interference in this appeal. It may also be mentioned that once the matter is settled in the Lok Adalat but could not be materialised, at least in such matters, the appeal should not be filed. The appeal filed by the claimants being devoid of merit stands rejected. The award passed by the MACT dated 25.10.2002 in MACT Case No. 1541/1997 stands confirmed. The claimants must have drawn this amount and in case the amount is not disbursed to the claimants the same may be disbursed immediately as per the award passed by the MACT. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.