Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 330 (RAJ)

Hussain B. 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. 316/96 by which a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts in short are that on 3.7.1996 the husband of the claimant/appellant deceased Sheikh Babu 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 Sheikh Babu died. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident, deceased Sheikh Babu was of 69 years age. He was retired from the Railways and after retirement, started cloth business and earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the present income of the deceased by way of cloth business and lower multiplier of 8 has been applied. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a retired government servant and he was getting pension. It has not been denied by the appellant that now she is getting family pension. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that no loss of income has been suffered by the appellant. In fact, it has been considered by the Tribunal that earlier deceased was getting pension and now the appellant is getting family pension and difference of Rs. 1000/- has been assessed and looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 8 has rightly been applied. Compensation under other statutory heads has also been awarded. 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.