Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


GYAN DEVI & ORS v ROOPLAL TRANSPORT CO. - CMA Case No. 03218 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 902 (15 February 2007)

6 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.3218/2006 (DRJ)

(Smt.Gyan Devi & anr. Vs. Rooplal Transport Co.& ors.)

Date of Order :: 15th February 2007


Mr.Rajesh Joshi with Mr.Manoj Bohra for the appellants. ...

This appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is barred by limitation by 25 days. However, looking to the circumstances of the case, ignoring the delay learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merits.

For awarding compensation to the dependents of the vehicular accident victim Subhash Shrimali, about 39 years in age, said to be serving in Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation and earning salary income of Rs.2,720/- per month, the Tribunal has provided for the component of future prospects at 25% and has taken average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,400/- per month; and deducting one- third therefrom on his personal expenditure has taken multiplicand at Rs.27,200/- per annum and with application of multiplier of 16 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,35,200/-.

The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- to the wife of deceased (non-applicant

No.4) towards loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- to the mother

(claimant No.1) and the children (claimant No.2 and non- applicant No.5) towards non-pecuniary loss; and in this manner has made the award in the sum of Rs.4,45,200/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claimants, mother and son of the deceased seek enhancement over the amount so awarded by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has been in error in not providing for adequate amount towards future prospects and so also in restricting the amount on non-pecuniary loss.

Having perused the award impugned, this Court is satisfied that the ultimate amount awarded by the Tribunal in this case at Rs.4,45,200/- cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation and there appears no scope for enhancement at the instance of the appellants.

In view of the age of the deceased at about 39 years, the estimate put by the Tribunal regarding future prospects at 25% of the last drawn salary of the deceased cannot be said to be falling too short of adequacy. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow maximum side multiplier of 16 in this case to assess pecuniary loss at Rs.4,35,200/-. Of course the amount of non-pecuniary loss in relation to the mother and children of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- appears to be standing a bit on the lower side; but in the ultimate analysis the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.4,45,200/- cannot be said to be too low or inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, when there appears no scope for enhancement, no purpose would be served by simply issuing notices on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because, as noticed, even when delay is ignored, the appeal does not merit admission.

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.