ASHA HARIYA Vs. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals along with another FAF.O. No. 567 of 1978, Pushpa Rani v. Asha Hariya, had been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital, dated 6th October, 1978. All these three appeals arose out of the same accident which is said to have occurred on 4.12.1976 in which one M.C. Hariya lost his life.

(2.) The appeal No. 567 of 1978 had been filed by the owner of the vehicle and has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 11.3.1988. Out of two remaining appeals one has been filed by claimants being FARO. No. 667 of 1978 and other appeal has been filed by the insurance company being FA.F.O. No. 641 of 1978. Since the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the truck No. UPD 742 has been finally determined in appeal No. 567 of 1978 that question need not detain us any longer. The only question that remains is the amount of compensation which may be awarded to the claimants. Against a claim of Rs. 7,54,876/- the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,200/-to the various claimants. The appellants in F.AF.O. No. 667 of 1978 have urged that this amount is too low and the amount as claimed in the petition ought to have been awarded to them.

(3.) It is not disputed that deceased at the time of accident was 41 years of age and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,267/- per month. This amount, however, included a sum of Rs. 430/- towards house rent, Rs. 150/- towards conveyance reimbursement, Rs. 100/- per month by way of medical reimbursement and Rs. 125/- per month towards leave travel reimbursement. The Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount under the last three heads, i.e., conveyance, medical and leave travel reimbursements and has awarded Rs. 100/- per month only towards house rent. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, seriously challenged the finding regarding reduction in house rent compensation. The admitted position is that deceased was entitled to house rent allowance of Rs. 430/- per month but since his death the family has resided with his younger brother and for this reason the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- per month only towards house rent allowance. The learned counsel has urged that a fixed amount of Rs. 100/- per month is absolutely arbitrary and in these days it is not possible to get a reasonable accommodation for such a small rent. The appellant's evidence, however, is totally silent on the question of house rent and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is not possible in appeal to hold that discretion exercised by the Tribunal was unjustified. We, therefore, repel this part of the submission of the learned counsel.