High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT. SAJJAN KANWAR & ANR v SHANKERLAL & ORS - CMA Case No. 739 of 2007  RD-RJ 1262 (9 March 2007)
(Smt.Sajjan Kunwar & anr. vs. Shankerlal & ors.)
Date of Order :: 9th March 2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Sandeep Saruparia for the appellants
Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit for Mr.J.S.Rathore for the respondent- insurer ...
With the claimants and insurer, the relevant and affected parties for the subject matter being represented and having reached consensus in settlement, this appeal is taken up for disposal, dispensing with service on other proforma respondents.
This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in its award dated 20.02.2004 in Claim Case No.133/2001 on account of accidental death of their 20 years old son, Gopal.
The claimants suggested that the deceased was earning about Rs.3,500/- per month but for want of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at
Rs.1,800/- and deducting one-third wherefrom has taken loss of contribution at Rs.1,200/- per month and with application of multiplier 11 with reference to the age of father of deceased at 55 years, has assessed pecuniary loss at
Rs.1,58,400/-. The Tribunal has allowed Rs.5,000/- towards treatment, Rs.500/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss. In this manner, the Tribunal has assessed total loss for the claimants at Rs.1,75,900/-; but has awarded Rs.1,75,400/- as compensation and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation so awarded, this appeal was presented by the claimants, but 36 days beyond limitation. However, such delay of 36 days was not put to contention during the course of submissions by the insurer particularly when the appellants pointed out that they have lost their only son in accident and could not file the appeal within time due to their mental and physical condition and so also for delayed communication. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
While the matter was being heard for motion- admission, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased on lower side and then in applying a grossly inadequate multiplier of 11 particularly when the age of mother of the deceased was shown at about 45 years at the time of accident. However, during the course of submissions, learned counsel for the parties exchanged some propositions for settlement and ultimately on 26.02.2007 it was stated by Mr.
J.S.Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurer that process of settlement was about to be completed and at request the matter was placed today.
Learned counsel Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit appearing for
Mr.J.S.Rathore has today shown a cheque No.629260 dated 07.03.2007 in the sum of Rs.40,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank,
Udaipur by the respondent-insurer in the name of appellant
No.1 Smt.Sajjan Kunwar; and submits that the insurer has agreed for enhancement of the amount of compensation in the manner that in all, a further payment of Rs.40,000/- is being made as full and final settlement. Learned counsel
Mr.Sandeep Saruparia appearing for the appellants agrees to the proposition and submits that the said cheque may be directed to be deposited with the Tribunal concerned for the purpose of claimants.
The insurer has indeed been discreet in its approach in settling out the matter in appeal at its threshold and in agreeing for enhancement of the award amount in the manner that the claimants do receive reasonable compensation. Having regard to the circumstances and particularly looking to the peculiar facts of the case where the age of mother of the victim has been stated at about 45 years and yet the Tribunal has proceeded to apply multiplier of 11 only; and then, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased much on the lower side; and for the fact that deceased was the only son of the appellants; and further for component of treatment expenditure because the victim remained hospitalised for about 4 days before he succumbed to the injures, this Court is of opinion that with the payment of Rs.40,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants do get just and sufficient compensation and such proposition for settlement deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, and in view of the consensus reached by the parties, this appeal is partly allowed; the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal stands modified; over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is further awarded to the claimants that is being paid by the respondent-insurer as noticed hereinbefore. The cheque aforesaid shall be deposited with the Tribunal concerned within a week from today. Out of the amount being now deposited, a sum of Rs.10,000/- may be paid cash to the appellant No.1 and the remaining be placed in Monthly Income
Scheme of Post Office for a minimum period of six years.
Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.