High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SUGNA RAM v MANGI RAM & ORS. - CMA Case No. 1129 of 2006  RD-RJ 358 (16 January 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1129/2006.
Sugna Ram Vs. Mangi Ram & Ors.
Date of Order :: 16th January 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. V.K. Bhadu, for the appellant. ...
BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel and perused the award impugned.
This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.3,25,000/- on account of accidental death of his pregnant wife Raj Bala, about 19 years in age, said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month by way of tailoring and knitting job.
For want of any cogent evidence on record, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased as a non- earning person and taking her notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, for the purpose of considering loss for the claimant has applied a multiplier of 16 on the entire notional income of
Rs.15,000/- and has thus assessed pecuniary loss at
Rs.2,40,000/-. Further, in view of her carrying pregnancy of 16 to 18 weeks and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has further added Rs.50,000/- for the loss of child in the womb; and has further allowed Rs.30,000/- towards non- pecuniary loss and yet another Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed interest @ 9% per annum after adjustment of the amount of
Rs.50,000/- received under No Fault Liability.
To say the least, the award so made by the Tribunal is rather excessive in favour of the claimant-appellant. Even while taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, the Tribunal has proceeded to directly apply a multiplier of 16 to such income and has not even accounted for the personal expenditure of the deceased. The amount of
Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary loss is also on the higher side. The Tribunal has further proceeded to allow interest at a higher rate of 9% per annum.
Viewed from any angle, the award in question is rather excessive ruling out any scope of enhancement at the instance of the appellant, husband of the deceased. The appeal remains totally meritless.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.