BATASHO DEVI Vs. REKHA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pramod Singh, a constable in Delhi Police, then aged 25 years, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 07:15 PM on 06.01.2007 at Akbar Road upon being hit by ambassador car bearing registration no.DL -9CK -0004 (the offending vehicle) statedly driven by the second respondent herein (impleaded in the claim petition as second respondent), it being a motor vehicle of the Department of Tourism of the Government of India for which reason Union of India, the third respondent herein, was also impleaded as a party respondent (second respondent before tribunal). Rekha, the widow of Pramod Singh brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 21.05.2007 which was registered as suit no.1320/2007. In the said case she impleaded as Batasho Devi (the appellant herein) as third respondent (proforma party), she being the mother of the deceased Pramod Singh. The tribunal held inquiry and on that basis awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.22,04,472/ - with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum ( it is mentioned in the operative part as 7%) from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The said amount included Rs.21,74,472/ - calculated as loss of dependency on the basis of the then salary and allowances (Rs.10,067/ - per month) drawn by the deceased, and Rs.10,000/ - each as non -pecuniary damages under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In the judgment, the tribunal directed the entire amount of compensation with interest to be paid to the claimant (the first respondent herein). The appellant moved an application before the tribunal which was registered as Miscellaneous case no.M -9/10 which was decided by order dated 16.07.2011 whereby the award earlier passed was modified and thirty percent (30%) of the awarded compensation with proportionate interest was apportioned in favour of the appellant herein.

(2.) By the appeal at hand, Batasho Devi (the mother of the deceased Pramod Singh) has raised grievances, inter -alia, to that extent that the widow (first respondent herein) having got married on 18.09.2010 could not have been granted seventy percent (70%) of the awarded compensation. She also contends that she was not noticed during the inquiry before the tribunal and that the compensation on account of loss of dependency and under non - pecuniary heads of damages is inadequate for the reasons, amongst others, that by virtue of approval of recommendation of subsequent Central Pay Commissions, the income of the deceased would have increased mani -fold, of which benefit deserves to be factored in.

(3.) On perusal of record of the tribunal, the contention of the appellant about she not being served with notice before inquiry by the tribunal is found to be factually wrong. A notice sent by registered AD post for 18.09.2007 was duly served as per acknowledgment card on record. Another notice sent for 19.12.2007 was also served and yet no one appeared on behalf of appellant.