AVANTIKA AGGARWAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement in the compensation. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 77,18,000 in favour of appellants and against the respondent along with interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum on the award amount from the date of institution of the petition till the date of realisation. Feeling not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have preferred the present appeal and sought enhancement in the said compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,67,20,000 as claimed by them in their petition moved under section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act. Appellants are also aggrieved with the interest rate and have claimed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in place of 7. 5 per cent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE conspectus of facts relevant for deciding the present appeal in brief are that on 30th August at about 8 a. m. , deceased alok Aggarwal along with his wife and son, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 started for jaipur from their residence. Deceased Alok aggarwal was driving Santro car bearing registration No. DL 3c-S 4971, owner of which was his employer, Modi Revlon. On delhi-Jaipur Highway on reaching Dharuhera, a Tata Sumo bearing registration no. HR 34-A 9920 being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by the driver Vinod kumar Yadav, respondent No. 1 herein, collided head-on with Santro car driven by the deceased. The deceased was taken to the hospital. Pursuant to this the appellants filed a claim petition on 8. 2. 2002, which led to the passing of award on 1. 3. 2005 and being aggrieved with the said award, present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record. The principal contention raised by the counsel for appellants is that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the legal principles as settled by this court in the case of Mamta Mohindra v. Deputy commissioner of Police, 2004 ACJ 395 (Delhi ). The contention of the counsel for appellants is that although while deciding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has relied upon the said judgment of mamta Mohindra (supra) but yet missed its sight and glossed over the amount of compensation allowed by this court for various allowances by holding that other allowances mentioned in Exh. PW1/r6 (salary slip) shall not be considered. The tribunal, thus, completely ignored the medical expenses, provident fund, leave travel allowance and bonus amount while taking into consideration the salary slip duly exhibited as Exh. PW1/r6 and returned the wrong finding by denying the said legally permissible allowances. The counsel for the appellants thus confined his argument for the enhancement of the compensation limited to the extent as has been allowed by this court in the aforesaid judgment giving benefit of grant of aforesaid allowances to which the deceased would have been entitled as would be evident from the salary slip duly exhibited by the appellants as Exh. PW1/r6. Counsel for the appellants contended that deriving strength from the judgment of this court, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the basic salary and house rent allowance while calculating the loss of dependency but has wrongly ignored other allowances as were being reimbursed to the deceased to which the dependants become legally entitled after the death of Alok Aggarwal.