High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT. JATANA & ORS v SUKHDEV SINGH & ANR - CMA Case No. 0869 of 2006  RD-RJ 771 (7 February 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.869/2006 (DRJ)
(Smt.Jatana & ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh & ors.)
Date of Order :: 7th February 2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. S.K.Sankhla for the appellant. ...
In this appeal submitted by the claimants against the common award dated 25.04.2005 made by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali insofar it relates to Claim Case
No.34/2003, office has raised objections about want of certified copy of the impugned award and want of application for condonation of delay because the appeal is barred by time by 61 days.
Learned counsel for the appellants has moved an application (IA No.3339/2006) seeking dispensing with filing of certified copy of the award dated 25.04.2005 with the submissions that certified copy of award has been filed in other appeal filed against the common award, being S.B.Civil
Misc. Appeal No.240/2006 Smt.Dali and others Vs. Sukh Dev and another.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the application IA No.3339/2006 is allowed and filing of certified copy of the award impugned is dispensed with.
Learned counsel has also moved an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay with the submissions that the appeal got delayed under the mistaken impression of one certified copy being sufficient for filing of the present one and the other appeal. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, ignoring the delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merits.
By way of the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,20,600/- to the parents, brother and niece of the vehicular accident victim
Jayantilal, about 21 years of age and said to be earning
Rs.2,100/- per month while working as khalasi on a truck. The
Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased as asserted by the claimants at Rs.2,100/- per month, has taken loss of contribution at Rs.1,400/- per month, and with application of multiplier of 17 has assessed pecuniary loss at
Rs.2,85,600/-. Allowing Rs.30,000/- to the claimants towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has made award in the sum of Rs.3,20,600/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
Tribunal has erred in not considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case where parents of the victim had earlier suffered loss of their other son Pukh Raj and the hapless father has lost his mental balance and was unable to earn; that wife of pre-deceased brother of the victim had contracted second marriage leaving her daughter with the claimants' family and such niece of the victim was also exclusively dependent upon him; and that the Tribunal has taken static figure of Rs.2,100/- per month towards average income of the deceased and has not considered future prospects of enhancement of income.
Having examined the award impugned, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has taken reasonably sympathetic view of the matter and has accepted entire of the income of the deceased as asserted by the claimants at Rs.2,100/- per month. The Tribunal has further taken two-third of the estimated income towards loss of contribution for the claimants. The fact remains that the deceased was an unmarried person and even if the claimants were dependent upon him, likelihood of his getting married in future and a larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, taking of two- third of the estimated income towards loss of contribution definitely stands on higher side. So far future enhancement of income is concerned, the deceased was not in any settled job or employment and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in not providing for any component towards future prospects. The Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 17 and has awarded a wee bit higher amount on non-pecuniary loss.
In the overall analysis, the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.3,20,600/- cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation and there appears no scope for enhancement.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, when there appears no scope for enhancement, no purpose would be served by simply issuing notices on application for condonation of delay because, as noticed, even when delay is ignored the appeal does not merit admission.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.