BHAVNA Vs. VINEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 2451 to 2455 and 2930 to 2935 of 2010, as all these appeals arose out of one accident and common award dated 5.4.2010 in Claim Case Nos. 63 and 316 to 321 of 2007 passed by First Additional M.A.C.T., Indore, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed all claim petitions and awarded compensation.

(2.) HEARD on the application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 23 days. Sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned.

(3.) CLAIM petitions were contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that it was rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata Safari vehicle which caused accident as Tata Safari was following the truck without maintaining reasonable distance. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no compensation can be awarded and claim petition be dismissed. The respondent No. 5 also contested claim petition on the ground that since the deceased and appellants were travelling as passengers in a private vehicle, therefore, respondent No. 5 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants and held both the drivers of the vehicles liable for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. However, learned Tribunal exonerated respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence and held respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable to pay the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, appeals have been filed by the appellants for enhancement while appeals and civil revisions have been filed by respondent No. 5 on the ground that learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent No. 5 liable for payment of compensation for the entire amount. In the appeal filed by the appellants, it is submitted that in a death case, learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000 per month and after deducting 1/3rd applied the multiplier of 15 while the deceased Suresh Sahu was an eminent lawyer and was practising at Bhopal. It is submitted that the amount awarded is inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced.