Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2413 (RAJ)

Girvatsinh Himmatsinh v. Harishchandra L. Solanki

2011-11-11

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2011
Hon'ble BHATTACHARYA, Actg. C.J.—This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in an application being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 679 of 1988 under Section 110D of the old Motor Vehicles Act, and is directed against the order dated 28th February, 1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Panchmahals at Godhra, thereby disposing of the said application, by awarding a sum of Rs. 89,000/- in favour of the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization with proportionate costs, with further direction upon both, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company to pay the said amount jointly and severally. 2. It may not be out of place to mention here that the claim of the appellant before the Tribunal below was to the extent of Rs.2,63,000/-, but the Tribunal below restricted the said claim to Rs. 89,000/-. 3. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has come up with the present appeal. 4. There is no dispute that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the concerned vehicle, father of the claimant died at the age of 45 years. According to the claimant, his father had agricultural land and at the same time, he also used to work as carpenter and thus, he had total income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum from the agriculture. 5. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that no evidence could be adduced in support of the claim that the victim used to earn the aforesaid amount. It was pointed out that ownership of the land by the victim had been proved, but it appears that the amount of land was negligible one and from the aforesaid amount of land, the income alleged by the claimant was not possible. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal below, by treating the income of the victim to be Rs. 9600/- per annum, came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to get Rs. 72,000/- for death by application of multiplier of 15 for the loss of dependency. In addition to that, Rs.5,000/- were awarded for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, total sum of Rs. 89,000/- was awarded by way of compensation. 6. Mr. 72,000/- for death by application of multiplier of 15 for the loss of dependency. In addition to that, Rs.5,000/- were awarded for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, total sum of Rs. 89,000/- was awarded by way of compensation. 6. Mr. Niral R. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant, strenuously contended before me that the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in calculating the amount of compensation by discarding major claim of the appellant. Mr. Mehta contends that having regard to the material on record, the finding on the question of compensation must be held to be perverse, justifying interference and as such, this Court should enhance the said amount. 7. After going through the material on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal below, having regard to the evidence on record, liberally awarded compensation in favour of the appellant notwithstanding the fact that no cogent evidence as regards actual income of the victim was produced by the claimant. Moreover, the victim, having based his income from agriculture, being the owner of the land, and the said land having been inherited by the appellant before me, there is no justification of interference with the amount awarded by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 12% per annum in addition to costs and thus, I find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is, thus, bereft of merit and is consequently dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.