High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
MORU KANWAR & ORS v GAJENDRA KUMAR & ORS - CMA Case No. 79 of 2007  RD-RJ 184 (9 January 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 79/2007.
(Smt.Moru Kawar & ors. Vs. Gajendra Kumar & ors.)
Date of Order :: 9th January 2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.M.L.Khatri, for the appellants. ...
For awarding compensation to the parents, wife and three children of the vehicular accident victim Ram Singh, about 28-30 years in age and said to be earning from two
STD booths and photostat work, the Tribunal has noticed that the claimants have produced the licence Ex.13 and the letter
Ex.12 issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited but have not produced any evidence in relation to the income of the deceased and, therefore, has not accepted the assertion of the claimants about his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-; and in the circumstances of the case has taken his income at
Rs.3,000/- per month and after deduction of one-third on his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 18 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,32,000/-; and while allowing Rs.5,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses has allowed total compensation in the sum of Rs.4,39,000/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application after adjustment of the amount of Rs.50,000/- received under
No Fault Liability. In this appeal, the claimants seek enhancement over the amount so awarded by the Tribunal.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the impugned award, this Court is satisfied that the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in the present case cannot be said to be grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence in relation to the income of the deceased, the
Tribunal cannot be faulted in putting an estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month. Moreover, the Tribunal has proceeded to apply maximum side multiplier of 18 to assess pecuniary loss. Of course, the amount on non-pecuniary loss appears to be on the lower side but in the ultimate analysis, the award as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be so inadequate as to warrant interference in appeal.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.