SURJIT KAUR Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are disposed of by common Judgment since they arise out of the award dated 5th October, 1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.28.1989.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of these two appeals are as under: Moreshwar Hedau, the husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2, 3 and 4 in First Appeal No.212/91 met with an accident on 30th July, 1988 at about 3.00 p.m. on National Highway No.7 near village Gangapur. At the relevant time, the deceased was driving the motorcycle. In the accident Moreshwar suffered serious injuries. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital at Nagpur for treatment. Inspite of treatment, Moreshwar expired on 1.8.1988. The appellants in First Appeal No.212/1991 being the legal representatives of the deceased Moreshwar filed Claim Petition against the respondents claiming compensation at Rs.10,29,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs twenty nine thousands). The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5 lacs and directed the respondent no.2 Assurance Company to pay the said amount to the petitioners with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation of the entire amount. Costs were also awarded against respondent no.2. The Tribunal also made an order regarding disbursement of the said amount. The claimants have filed First Appeal No.212/91 claiming enhanced compensation whereas the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident along with the insurer have filed First appeal No.116/91 challenging the award on various grounds.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Pophaly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No.116/91 and for Assurance Company in First Appeal No.212/91 submitted that the compensation granted is on higher side and, therefore, interference is called for in the appeal filed by him. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier of 25 and awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lacs in favour of the claimants. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pophaly relied upon the following Judgments.