High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT.INDRA DEVI & ORS. v MANGLA RAM & ORS. - CMA Case No. 379 of 2007  RD-RJ 418 (18 January 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.379/2007.
(Smt. Indra Devi Ors. Vs. Mangla Ram & Ors.)
Date of Order :: 18th January 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. S.P. Bhati, for the appellant. ....
Having heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and having perused the impugned award dated 18.03.2006 in
Claim Case No.96/2005, this Court is satisfied that this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation does not merit admission.
For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife, child and mother of the vehicular accident victim Amba
Ram, about 25 years in age, the Tribunal has noticed the submissions of the claimants about the deceased earning
Rs.6,000/- per month while working as a miner and further Rs. 28,000/- per annum by way of agriculture; but for want of any cogent evidence on record, has estimated his monthly income at
Rs.3,600/-; and deducting one-third wherefrom has taken annual loss of dependency at Rs. 28,800/- and with application of multiplier of 16 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,60,800/-, has allowed Rs.13,200/- towards non-pecuniary loss, and
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; and has, thereby, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,76,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application.
Learned counsel for the claimant urges that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased on a lower figure and has further erred in applying multiplier of 16 only. The submissions do not merit acceptance in the context of awarding of just compensation.
True it is that the Tribunal has restricted application of multiplier at 16 only though it were a claim application under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; and, in view of the age of the victim in the group of 20-25 years, appropriate multiplier would have been of 17; but then, the Tribunal has taken a rather higher multiplicand at Rs. 28,800/- per annum. The claimants have not produced any cogent documentary evidence in regard to their assertion of the earnings of the deceased at about Rs. 8,000/- per month while working on mines and on agriculture; and on the facts of the case, the estimate put by the Tribunal on the average income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month stands much on the higher side. Hence, assessment of pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,60,800/- even with application of multiplier of 16 has not been grossly inadequate, low or insufficient. Then, in the claim application made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, non-pecuniary loss has been allowed at the higher figure of Rs. 13,200/-.
In the ultimate analysis, the assessment of compensation as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be low or inadequate than that of just compensation admissible in this case; and there appears no 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.