Mohan Nath vs Shanti Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 2596 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2668/2019

1. Mohan Nath S/o Harinath, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Nath, R/o Jogi Khera, P.s. Pratapgarh, Tehsil And Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.) (Driver Tata Magic Tempo No. M.P.-14-TB-0497)

2. Bherulal S/o Mangilal Gayari, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Gayari, R/o Amalavad, P.s. Bhawgarh (M.P.) Tehsil Daloda, Dist. Mandsaur (M.P.) (Owner Tata Magic Tempo No. M.P.-14-TB-0497)

----Appellants/Non-Claimants Versus

1. Shanti Bai W/o Late Govardhandas,

2. Anil S/o Late Govardhandas, through His Natural Guardian Shanti Bai (Mother)

3. Radha Bai W/o Late Ambadas,

4. Jyoti D/o Late Govardhandas,

5. Seema D/o Late Govardhandas, All B/c Veragi, R/o Asawata P.s. Hathuniya, Tehsil And Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.)

---Respondents/Claimants

6. The Manager, Royal Sundaram, Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 11 Office 46 Whites Road, Chennai 600014 through 607-611 6Floor, Vijaycity Point Subhash Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.

(Insurer Tata Magic Tempo No. M.P.-14-TB-0497)

----Respondents/Non-claimant

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal Mr. Bharat Devasi For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

01/02/2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

(2 of 3) [CMA-2668/2019]

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and

award dated 21.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.223/2017

(35/2015). The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated

21.05.2019 awarded a sum of Rs.9,63,100/- against the

appellants/non-claimants No. 1 & 2.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted

that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive and the

Tribunal has not considered the facts and evidence produced

before its in right perspective. The learned counsel for the

appellants failed to point out any infirmity in the award passed by

the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 21.05.2019.

The contentions of the learned counsel that the deceased

was 47 years of age and multiplier for calculating the

compensation has wrongly been applied in the present case and

thus, excessive award has been passed. He further submits that

two daughters namely Smt. Jyoti and Smt. Seema, who are

married daughters have been considered as dependents in the

present case and Rs.50,000/- each has been directed to be

deposited in their accounts.

I have examined the judgment & award and the relevant

documents. On the face of it, the contentions raised by the

learned counsel are devoid of force as the multiplier of 13 has

been used for computing the income by taking into consideration

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

(2009) 6 SCC 12 as the deceased was 47 years of age. Thus,

there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. As far

as the second argument that Rs.50,000/- each has been directed

(3 of 3) [CMA-2668/2019]

to be deposited in the Bank accounts of two daughters, I find that

in Paragraph 24 of the judgment of the Tribunal, the dependency

has only been taken to be of the wife, mother and unmarried son

of the deceased, and while computing the same, the two married

daughters have not been considered as dependents. Thus, the

deposition of amount of Rs.50,000/- in their fixed deposition

cannot be construed that they have been considered as

dependents.

In the opinion of this Court, the judgment and award dated

21.05.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from

any infirmity and thus, there is no force in the appeal, therefore,

the civil misc. appeal is dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 4-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)