Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 390 (RAJ)

Mohammed Yasin v. Surendra Singh

2012-02-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 8th February, 2002 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, decreed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the same. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 27th July, 1997 Mohammed Usman was standing opposite to his father's shop and waiting for the arrival of his younger brother. It is alleged that at about 8.30PM one Mini-bus bearing registration No.RNB-6631 driven by its driver rashly and negligently suddenly emerged at a high speed and hit Mohammed Usman and fled from the spot. Mohammed Usman sustained grievious injuries and died in transit while taking him to the Hospital. The police lodged the First Information Report of the accident and after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused-driver Surendra Singh and sent him to trial. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the deceased Mohammed Usman was of the age of 13 years at the time of accident. The accident has not been disputed by the respondents nor the age of the deceased has been challenged .In view of the admitted facts and the manner in which the accident took place, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not seem to be apposite and the same deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel further canvassed that the case of the appellants is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in bunch of appeals on 2nd November, 2011, out of which the number of one appeal is S.B.C.M.A. No.870/2001. In these cases, this Court enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in those claim cases wherein the age of the deceased was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel further canvassed that in the light of the above judgment of this Court also, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced and the impugned award deserves to be modified. 5. E-converso, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-National Insurance Co. Learned counsel further canvassed that in the light of the above judgment of this Court also, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced and the impugned award deserves to be modified. 5. E-converso, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-National Insurance Co. defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned award as also the afore-stated judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is found that the case of the appellants is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in a Bunch of appeals, out of which the number of appeal is SBCMA No.870/2001. 7. Having considered all age groups of the deceased children and analyzed the attending facts and circumstances of the cases this Court observed in the above cited appeals that in a claim case wherein the age of the child at the time of accidental death was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years, the claimants are held to get the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. 8. Thus, the instant appeal is found to have squarely covered by the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and the amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is ordered to be enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. The appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. Other terms and conditions under the award shall remain unchanged. 9. In view of above, the appeal succeeds and the impugned award stands modified as indicated herein above.