Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SAHIRAM & ANR v GAVARA DEVI & ORS - CMA Case No. 310 of 1998 [2007] RD-RJ 897 (14 February 2007)



(Sahiram & ors. Vs. Gavara Devi & ors.)

Date of Order :: 14th February 2007


Mr.B.L.Maheshwari for the appellants.

Mr.K.K.Bissa for the respondents

Smt.Gavara Devi and Bhagwana Ram, respondents No.1 and 3/3 present in person. ...

Learned counsel for the parties have placed on record a deed of compromise and submit that as against the award made by the Tribunal in sum of Rs.1,82,000/-, the appellants have in all made payment of amount of Rs.1,45,000/- that has been agreed to by the parties as full and final payment against the award of compensation; and that the award may be re-stated accordingly.

Learned counsel Mr.K.K.Bissa on instructions submits that an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants under No Fault Liability has already been received by the claimants; and that further amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing this appeal and another amount of

Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants in terms of the orders passed by this Court are lying in deposit with the Tribunal; and that a further amount of Rs.70,000/- has been paid in cash by the appellants that is available with the respondent

Bhagwana Ram at present and the claimants are ready to make deposit of the amount as directed by the court.

For accidental death of Manakaram, about 24 years in age and said to be working as agriculture-labourer, the

Tribunal, in its impugned award dated 27.10.1997, has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,82,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum taking his annual income at

Rs.15,000/- and loss of dependency at Rs.10,000/- per annum and with application of multiplier of 17 and after allowing

Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Under the award impugned, the

Tribunal has apportioned 40% of the amount to the claimant

No.1, wife of the deceased, 30% to the claimant No.2, son of the deceased and remaining 30% to the claimant No.3 father of the deceased, since deceased and represented by his legal representatives.

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the proposition of settlement as put forward by the parties though operates in reduction of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal but cannot be said to be falling too short of just compensation admissible in this case and having regard to the circumstances of the case, this

Court is of opinion that the proposition of settlement as put forward by the parties deserves acceptance, however, with modification of the manner and proportion of disbursement as ordered by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this appeal succeeds to the extent agreed to by the parties and is partly allowed. The award of compensation is made finally in the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- in favour of the claimants.

The claimants have already received Rs.25,000/- under

No Fault liability and out of the remaining Rs.1,20,000/-, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is said to be available in deposit with the Tribunal and another amount of Rs.70,000/- is said to be available in cash with the claimants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered that the amount of

Rs.50,000/- available in deposit with the Tribunal shall be put in Monthly Income Scheme of Post Office for a minimum period of six years in the name of claimant No.2 Dungarram son of the deceased through his natural guardian, mother.

Out of the amount of Rs.70,000/- now received by the claimants, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be placed in Monthly

Income Scheme of Post Office in the name of claimant No.1

Gavara Devi for a minimum period of six years and particulars thereof shall be furnished to the Tribunal within four weeks from today. Remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- may be retained cash by the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.



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.