USHA N DADLANI Vs. ANIL KUMAR OBEROI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Judgment of learned Single Judge in FAO No. 190 of 1981 dated 30/08/1991 is under challenge. The appeal before learned Single Judge was under Section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act').

(2.) Stand of the appellant is as follows :- Appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') are the widow, daughter and son of shri Narender N. Dadlani (hereinafter referred to as the deceased' ), who succumbed to injuries sustained on account of fatal vehicular accident on 02/11/1997. Offending vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as 'insurer'). The deceased was working as an employee of the Delhi Vidyut Board ( hereinafter referred to as the Board ). It was their stand that the deceased was getting about Rs. 1,100.00 - per month at the time of accident. The claim of Rs.5.00 lakhs was lodged before (he Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( in short, 'the Tribunal). In consideration of the materials brought-on-record, more particularly the pay particulars, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,00,351.00 by the Tribunal. In appeal, learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.2.40.000.00. Multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was 15, while the learned Single Judge enhanced it to 25. Interest @ 12% was also allowed from the date of filing claim application. It is to be noted that tlie Tribunal had directed payment of interested 6% from the date of the realization of award hi case the amount was not paid within sixty days from the date of award.

(3.) This appeal has been filed with a prayer for enhancement of the amount fixed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the relevant factors were not taken into account. The multiplier adopted is also assailed to be on the lower side. It is submitted that the future potentialities for increase in emoluments have not been taken into account. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Dixit & Another v. Balwant Yadav & Others, 1996 ACJ 581. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the multiplier adopted by learned Single Judge is much higher than the maximum permissible limit, as indicated by the Apex Court in several decisions. According to him, interest @12%, as granted, is also on the higher side.