RAJNI KHANNA Vs. DAYA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, it is proposed to decide two appeals being FAO No. 465/2003 entitled "Smt. Rajni Khanna and Ors. v. Daya Chand and Ors." and FAO No. 352/2003 entitled "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daya Chand and Ors." The first of these two appeals has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award amount, while the second appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company praying for the setting aside of the judgment and award dated 13.02.2003 on the ground that the insured having committed breach of the policy conditions, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is proposed to deal with the said appeals one by one. FAO No. 465/2003 entitled "Smt. Rajni Khanna and Ors. v. Daya Chand and Ors."

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 17.05.1995 at about 10:40 p.m. one Kamal Kishore Khanna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") while he was crossing the road to go to the G.T. Market, Pritampura, was hit by the offending vehicle, a truck bearing No. RSA 6585, driven by the Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the widow and minor daughter of the deceased claiming the compensation of 20,00,000/- for the untimely demise of the deceased. The learned Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 13.02.2003 awarded a sum of 8,15,800/- (Rupees eight lakh fifteen thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition, that is, 17.07.2005.

(3.) The sole grievance of the Appellants in the appeal is that a very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that as per the testimony of PW1 Smt. Rajni Khanna, the wife of the deceased, her husband was employed with the Central Bank of India as a clerk on a monthly salary of 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only). His date of birth was 13.09.1953, meaning thereby that at the time of the accident, he was about 41-42 years of age on the date of the accident. He left behind him his wife, the Appellant No. 1 aged 34 years at the time of the accident and a minor daughter, the Appellant No. 2 aged 7 years on the said date. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the amount of compensation awarded was not just and fair.