Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 651 (RAJ)

Kailashi v. Gopal Lal

2012-03-14

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 5th September, 1998, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (here-in-after to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), decreed an amount of Rs. 2,12,000/-, in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation. 2. The respondent no. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the cross-objections to the appeal imploring that the amount under the award is excessive and the Tribunal has allowed the interest @ 12% per annum to be paid on the amount under the award to the claimants, hence, the rate of interest should be reduced and the amount under the award may also be brought to apposite level. Since both the appeal as also the cross objections have been heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 10th July, 1992, the deceased Jagdish was travelling in a Truck bearing Registration No. RND 1851 along with other co-passengers. Jagdish was carrying iron sheets after paying the proper freight and travelling as a goods passengers. The driver of the truck drove the vehicle so rashly and negligently, at such a fast speed that the truck left the road and capsized resulting into injuries to so many passengers and death of Jagdish. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which after trial came to be decided and the Tribunal decreed an amount in favour of the claimants, as indicated hereinabove. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants took me through the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)) and focused his arguments only on one aspect and canvassed that the number of dependents family members in the instant case is five. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)) and focused his arguments only on one aspect and canvassed that the number of dependents family members in the instant case is five. The Tribunal reduced 1/3 amount in consideration towards maintaining himself had he been alive, as per the note appended below the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas the Tribunal ought to have reduced ¼ amount keeping in view the number of dependent on the deceased as guided by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not object to this legal proposition, as it is based on the judgment of the Apex Court. 7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the Tribunal considered Rs. 15,000/- to be the anuual income of the deceased, hence, considering Rs. 15,000/- to be the annual income of the deceased, the loss of dependency in the light of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) is computed thus:- Rs.15,000 – Rs.3,750/- (1/4 of the annual income of the deceased) = Rs.11,250/- Rs.11,250/- x 16 = Rs. Rs.1,80,000/- 8. Hence, the loss of dependency in the instant appeal is found to be Rs. 1,80,000/- instead of Rs. 1,60,000/-. 9. The Tribunal is found to have awarded money on other heads also, but I do not find any reason to interfere with them. 10. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants-appellants are held entitled to claim Rs. 2,32,000/- instead of Rs. 2,12,000/- from the respondents, jointly and severally. The appellants are also held entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 11. The impugned award stands modified as indicated here-in-above. 12. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. 13. The cross objections filed by the cross objector has no force, and the same stands dismissed, accordingly.