Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SAYRA & ORS v KALU RAM SANKHLA & ORS - CMA Case No. 294 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 473 (22 January 2007)


(Smt. Sayra & Ors. Vs. Kalu Ram Sankhla & Ors.)

Date of Order :: 22nd January 2007.


Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, for the appellants. ...

For awarding compensation to the dependents of the vehicular accident victim Gaffar Khan, the Tribunal has noticed his age as asserted by the claimants at 55 years and as stated in the postmortem report at 60 years, has also noticed the assertion of the claimants about the deceased earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his timber store and saw- machine but has rejected such assertion for want of documentary evidence and has taken his monthly income at

Rs.3,000/-; and with deduction of one-third on his personal expenditure has taken dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum, and with application of multiplier of 8 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.1,92,000/-. The Tribunal has also allowed Rs.10,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- to the three children towards loss of love and guidance of their father and another Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; and in this manner, has made the award of compensation in the sum of

Rs.2,27,000/- in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has further proceeded to award interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The claimants seek enhancement by way of this appeal.

The award made by the Tribunal in the present case cannot be said to be low or inadequate from any stand point. The assessment of pecuniary loss with application of multiplier of 8 is not on the lower side particularly for the deceased being in the age group of 55-60 years and the amount towards non-pecuniary loss and funeral expenses has been awarded rather on the higher side and so is the rate of interest at 9% per annum.

In the ultimate analysis, the award as made by the

Tribunal cannot be said to be low or inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal; and there appears no scope for enhancement.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.