High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
KHEMARAM & ORS v SARBJEET SINGH & ORS - CMA Case No. 103 of 2007  RD-RJ 239 (11 January 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.103/2007.
Khema Ram & Anr. Vs. Sarabjeet Singh & Ors.
Date of Order :: 11th January 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. R.P. Choudhary, for the appellants. ...
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the award impugned, this Court is of opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the
Tribunal cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case; and, therefore, this appeal does not merit admission.
The claimant-appellants, respectively in 63 and 62 years of age, made the claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for accidental death of their son Magna Ram, about 26 years in age and said to be working as a labourer with a tent house.
For quantification of compensation to be awarded in this case, the Tribunal has found that no cogent corroborative evidence has been produced in relation to the assertion of the claimants about monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and has put an estimate on his monthly income at Rs.2,400/- and with application of multiplier of 5, after deducting one-third on his personal expenditure, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.96,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed further Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and in this manner has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,13,500/- and has also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
The award aforesaid has, of course, been made with application of multiplier of 5 but then, the amount towards general damages, i.e. towards non-pecuniary loss at
Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.2,500/- are obviously in excess and not in tune with the requirements of Second
Schedule to the Act. Estimate on the monthly income of the deceased has been put at Rs.2,400/- though no cogent corroborative evidence regarding his income or contribution has been adduced. The rate of interest at 7.5% per annum too is not on the lower side.
Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in the fact situation of the present case could only be said to be moderate but not grossly inadequate; and rules out scope for enhancement.
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.