Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balvir Singh And Anr vs Ram Prasad And Ors on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1469/2012
1. Balvir Singh S/o Shri Kana Ram, aged 48 years, By caste Jat,
resident of Bhirani, Tehsil-Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
2. Sarla Devi W/o Shri Balveer Singh, aged 47 years, by caste
Jat, Resident of Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Prasad S/o Shri Parmeshwar Lal, aged 50 years,
resident of 1/417-A, Bhagwanpur Kheda, Loni Road, Delhi-
110032.
2. K.D. Puri S/o Shri Chint Ram Puri, by caste Puri, Resident of
S-3 Shivan Plaza B & D Market, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-11095
Proprietor M/s R.K. Tour and Travels.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 487, IInd Floor Julfe
Bangal, G.T. Road, Disshad Garden, Delhi Through Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., National Highway No.15,
Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil A. Vyas.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
22/03/2021
The case is listed in the 'orders category' for effecting service
of notices upon respondent No.1.
At the cost and risk of the appellant, the service of notice
upon respondent No.1 is dispensed with, as prayed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is finally heard today itself.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 18.05.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims
(2 of 2) [CMA-1469/2012]
Tribunal, Bhadra District Hanumangarh in Motor Accident Claim
Case No.36/2009 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.
5,45,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants with an interest
@ 9% p.a.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence and hearing counsel for the parties awarded the
compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants as stated
hereinabove.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since there
are two dependents, as such, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted
the amount to the extent of 50%. The computation of award is,
therefore, incorrect.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that since the deceased was an unmarried person,
therefore, deduction of income to the extent of 50% is perfectly
justified being in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and the
judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Tribunal. It is an
admitted position that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore,
no error has been committed by the Tribunal while deducting the
income to the extent of 50%. The computation in the present case
is perfectly just and proper.
In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in
the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
30-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
