MEENA Vs. BHAGWATI FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death of Hari Kumar who was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident which took place on 25.11.2007. In a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment awarded a compensation of Rs.4,15,000/-.

(2.) THE Appellants grievance is that at the time of the accident, the deceased had an income of Rs.40,000/- per annum. If the deceased had not died an untimely death, he would have earned much more in the future and thus future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration. It is also urged that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards non-pecuniary damages is very low. The multiplier as per II Schedule, argues the learned counsel for the Appellant, was 16 at the age of 38; the Tribunal fell into error in applying the multiplier of 15.

(3.) SIMILARLY , in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428, it was held that a person can apply to the Tribunal to claim compensation in terms of the Schedule without proving the negligence or default on the part of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle. It is true that the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15 which should have been 16, but at the same time the compensation awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium was granted as Rs.25,000/-, against the limit of Rs.9,500/- provided in clause 3 of the II Schedule. The overall compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- awarded under Section 163-A is just and proper. It does not call for any interference.