High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
TIPU BAI & ORS v RAJENDRA & ORS - CMA Case No. 0233 of 2007  RD-RJ 3837 (8 August 2007)
(Smt.Tipu Bai & ors. Vs. Rajendra & ors.)
DATED : 8th August 2007
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Arun Dadhich, for the appellants
For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife and four minor children of the vehicular accident victim
Sohan Lal Prajapat, about 38 years of age, said to be working as a mechanic with Perfect Thread Mills, Amberi, Udaipur and earning salary of Rs.7,000/-per month, after examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken the deceased in the age group of 35-40 years and with reference to the certificate (Ex.17) and the statements of claimant Smt. Tipu
Bai, has found that the deceased was working in the finishing section of the said industry and was getting wages at
Rs.103.80 per day, and has found him earning Rs.2,698/- per month. However, with reference to the likelihood of enhancement in income for the deceased being about 37 years of age; and for his dependents being four minor children and wife, the Tribunal has considered it appropriate to take his average monthly income at Rs.3,000/-; and after deducting one-third wherefrom, has taken dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month i.e., Rs.24,000/- per annum; and with application of multiplier of 16, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs. 3,84,000/-; and after allowing a further amount of 27,000/- towards general damages has assessed total loss of the claimants at
Rs.4,11,000/-. The award is sought to be questioned in this appeal by the claimants as being low and inadequate.
This appeal by the claimants is barred by limitation by 34 days; however, having regard to the circumstances of the case, ignoring such delay, learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merits.
Learned counsel strenuously contended that the
Tribunal has been in error in not assessing pecuniary loss with reference to the future enhancement prospects of the victim who was comparatively younger in age and had bright future prospects; that the Tribunal has erred in not considering excessive dependency of wife, three daughters and one son of the victim; and that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount towards medical expenditure and towards transportation.
Having examined the matter in its totality this Court is of opinion that the award in question rules out any scope for enhancement.
So far assessment of higher multiplicand with reference to the future prospects is concerned, the deceased has not been shown in any settled job or employment so as to consider any reasonable chances of enhancement of earnings in future. Yet, in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has taken a liberal view of the matter and has taken average income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month; and assessment of pecuniary loss made on that basis at
Rs.3,84,000/- cannot be said to be low or inadequate in the context of the earnings of the deceased and dependency of the claimants. So far the component of medical expenditure and transportation is concerned, apart from the fact that the claimants have not produced any reliable evidence in relation to the expenditure incurred on treatment and transportation of the victim, said to have expired in hospital the next day after the accident, the award of compensation as made in this case in the sum of Rs.4,11,000/- cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to call for interference in appeal for such component only. In the ultimate analysis, the award in question cannot be said to be less than that of just compensation.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, no purpose would be served by issuing notice on application seeking condonation of delay because, as noticed, even when delay is condoned the appeal does not merit admission.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed on merits.
SS (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.