High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Manpreet Kaur & Anr. v. Kundan Singh & Ors. - FAO-559-2005  RD-P&H 5937 (25 August 2006)
C.M.No.2255-CII of 2005 and
F.A.O. No. 559 of 2005 (O.&M.)
Date of decision: 29.8.2006
Manpreet Kaur and another.
Kundan Singh and others.
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover
Present: Shri Padam Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent no.3.
The claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal impugning award dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (hereinafter described as `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.Case No.29 of 31.10.2001.
In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 8.10.2001, Santokh Singh lost his life on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no.MP-09-Ka -0495 by Kundan Singh- respondent no.1. The claim petition preferred by the present appellants along with Mohinder Partap Singh son of the deceased was answered by the Tribunal in their favour and they were held entitled to compensation C.M.No.2255-CII of 2005 and
amounting to Rs.7,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, had taken into consideration the age of the deceased, who was 47 years old when the hands of providence intervened and was earning Rs.11120/- per month as salary which was duly proved on record. The dependency was assessed at Rs.6500/- after deducting the expenses that the deceased would have been spending on himself, as also on account of paying the income tax. A multiplier of `10' was adopted to arrive at a figure of Rs.7,80,000/-. Rs.5000/- were awarded on account of funeral expenses.
The appellants, by way of the present appeal, have sought enhancement of the compensation.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded to the appellants is just and adequate. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency at Rs.6500/- per month after deducting the personal expenses which are approximately 1/3rd
of the income of the deceased and also some amount for payment of income tax. The multiplier of `10' is also just and adequate. In view of this, there is no scope for interference or modification of the impugned award.
Besides, the appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 833 days. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in P.K.Ramchandran Versus State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 S.C. 2276 that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable grounds.
So on both the counts, i.e., on account of delay and on account of adequacy of the compensation awarded, there is no merit in the appeal.
C.M.No.2255-CII of 2005 and
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal are dismissed.
(Mahesh Grover )
August 29,2006 (Uma Nath Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.