High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SAMMAN KANWAR & ORS v UDAILAL & ORS - CMA Case No. 656 of 2007  RD-RJ 949 (19 February 2007)
Smt. Samman Kanwar & Ors.
Udai Lal & Ors.
Date of Order :: 19th February 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Manish Pitaliya, for the appellants.
For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the mother and three minor children of the vehicular accident victim Amar Singh, about 23 years in age, the
Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning about Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month as a general merchant and with 5-7 bighas of land; and has put an estimate on his income at Rs.24,000/- per annum from labour and agriculture. The Tribunal has also noticed the fact that wife of the deceased had died earlier and the dependants were his mother and three minor children. In the overall circumstances of the case after deduction of one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased and with application of multiplier of 17, the Tribunal has assessed pecuniary loss at
Rs.2,72,000/- (16,000 x 17); has further allowed Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimants towards non-pecuniary loss and another
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in this manner has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.3,14,000/-; and has allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
The award is sought to be questioned by the claimants as being low and inadequate. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeking enhancement laid emphasis on the fact that the earnings of the deceased from agriculture has been duly established on record with proof of his agricultural land and the estimate put by the Tribunal on his annual income at Rs.24,000/- remains insufficient.
The submissions are lacking in strength for the fundamental reason that if the deceased was possessed of agricultural land and was earning therefrom, a part of such income retaining itself to the claimants cannot be ruled out; and in the overall circumstances of the case, the estimate as put by the Tribunal on his income at Rs.24,000/- per annum cannot be said to be grossly inadequate. The Tribunal has applied reasonably higher multiplier of 17 and then has proceeded to allow rather excessive amount towards non- pecuniary loss. On the whole, the award in question cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation admissible in this case so as to warrant interference in appeal.
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.