High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
MOHD.HUSSAIN & ORS. v NORA RAM & ORS. - CMA Case No. 558 of 2007  RD-RJ 864 (13 February 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.558/2007.
Mohd. Hussain & Ors.
Nora Ram & Ors.
Date of Order :: 13th February 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Kailash Trivedi, for the appellants. ...
In its impugned award dated 13.12.2005 made in
Claim Case No.42/2002 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bali has proceeded to award compensation to the parents and minor brother and sisters of 16 years old vehicular accident victim Abdul Razak in the sum of Rs.4,98,000/- despite finding that there was no documentary evidence produced in relation to the income of the deceased and yet assuming him to be carrying a grocer's shop and earning
Rs.3,000/- per month and then providing for future enhancement and taking his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-; and while deducting one-third on his personal expenditure, taking pecuniary loss at Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum; and then, after looking at the age of the parents of the deceased at 57 and 48 years, with application of multiplier of 13.
By way of this appeal, the claimants seek enhancement over the amount of Rs.4,98,000/- so awarded as compensation by the Tribunal.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants and having perused the impugned award, this Court is clearly of opinion that what to say of enhancement over the award amount as allowed by the Tribunal that seems to be contrary to the relevant principles applicable for awarding just compensation; it would rather be a fit case to reduce the award amount, if so challenged by the non- applicants.
The award of compensation in a vehicular accident claim case is required to be that of just compensation to the claimants for the loss suffered by them due to the accident and it cannot be in the nature of bonanza as appears in the present case.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,98,000/- to the claimant-appellants on account of accidental death of 16 years old boy despite noticing that there was no documentary evidence about the income of the victim. It sounds rather strange that the Tribunal has proceeded not only to take his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- but has even proceeded to allow future enhancement despite the deceased being not in any settled job or employment; and has taken monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and then has deducted only one-third therefrom despite noticing that the deceased was an unmarried person and totally ignoring future likelihood of the deceased getting married and thereby a larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family. The award in question from all standards stands much on the higher side and the approach of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. To say the least, the claim of enhancement over such award sounds rather preposterous.
With the observations aforesaid, 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.