Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 26 (RAJ)

Gulab Bai v. Kuldeep @ Kulveer

2012-01-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants for enhancement of compensation at the instance of the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that if the law of relevant time of accident is applied by accepting the expectancy of life to be 60 years, higher multiplier should be applied thereby reducing the age of the deceased thereagainst and deduction for self expenses of deceased should be 1/4th looking to the number of dependants being five as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Shanti Devi in which for the accident of the year 1991, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.40,000/- was enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in this case compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that if the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra is applied, then it has to be applied in totality, according to which, multiplier of 17 should have been applied while making deduction towards the own expenses of the deceased. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that income of Rs.600/- per month of the deceased that has been accepted by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable because deceased at the relevant time was khallasi and as per the notified rates of an unskilled labour of the relevant year, it was Rs.420/- per month. Respondent may be justified that if the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra is applied, then it has to be applied in totality. The compensation cannot be enhanced in a death claim case where Tribunal has given a certain basis for arriving at such a conclusion. The award is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.