Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 329 (RAJ)

Vijaylakshmi v. R. Trimal

2012-02-07

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and award dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Petition No. 315/96 by which a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts in short are that on 3.7.1996 the deceased Narsimhan with others were coming from Agra to Jaipur in Bus No. U.R.T. 1127. The respondent No. 1, driver of the Bus, was driving the Bus rashly and negligently. Because of his negligent driving when the Bus reached near Sanwas Pulia, it went on wrong side and hit the Tractor standing on the side of the road. Because of this collusion, the deceased Narsimhan died. Present appellant No. 1 is sister of deceased Narsimhan and appellants No. 2 to 5 are children of appellant No. 1. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident, deceased Narsimhan was 36 years of age. He was a dye maker and used to earn about Rs. 3500/- per month. He was unmarried and was looking after the family of his sister, the present appellants. Looking to the monthly income of the deceased, much higher amount of dependency should have been fixed for assessing the amount of compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 5. The learned Tribunal has considered the relevant documents and evidence produced before it and has not rightly arrived at conclu-sion that the deceased was having any fix income. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income on notional basis which is, according to Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is Rs. 15000/- per year and looking to the fact that the present appellants are not Class I legal heirs of deceased, 1/3rd deduction has been made for personal expenses of the deceased and taking note of the fact that age of the deceased was 45 years, multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and adequate. There is no need to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.