RASHEEDA BEGUM Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal the appellant has claimed enhancement in compensation over and above the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned Award dated 17.2.2004 The detailed facts of the case need not be elaborated as it is admitted case that a fatal accident involving death of the son of the appellant had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the DTC bus bearing registration No. DEP 9353 and a Mini bus bearing registration No. DBP , 1395 on 21.1.1991.

(2.) The appellant is primarily aggrieved with the meager amount of compensation awarded in her favour by the Tribunal. Mr.S. Shahi, counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was at his prime age of 26 years and ignoring the applicable multiplier as laid in schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal has taken into consideration the multiplier of 8 for calculating the compensation. The counsel further contended that the appellant has also been deprived of the interest from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. December, 1991. The interest has merely been granted with effect from 6.1.2001. Counsel for the appellant also contended that no compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased has been granted by the Tribunal and no compensation for the loss of love and affection has been granted and even no funeral expenses have been granted by the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant is that in a most prefidious and pedantic manner the Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 63,000/- towards the compensation for the death of a young man of 26 years. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that there was no proof of age of the appellant despite filing of the election card by the appellant before the Tribunal. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the age of the appellant at the time of the filing of the petition was about 40 years and at the time of deposition it was 49 years. The counsel further contended that the appellant has also illegally been deprived of the interest from the date of filing the petition by misconstruing the order dated 6.9.2001 passed by the High Court, which in no way stated that the appellant will not be paid interest from the filing of the petition. The counsel also urged that even the rate of interest is quite on the lower side.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the records.