SADHNA SONI Vs. DINESH SINGH BHADORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants/appellants have filed two claim petitions bearing M.C.C. No. 2703/2006 and M.C.C. No. 2704/2006 which were decided by a common award passed by the Claims Tribunal dated 29th February, 2008 framing the common issue. In a case of death of late Arun Kumar Soni, an amount of Rs. 8,64,117/- has been awarded. Simultaneously, in a case of death of Rishi Soni, compensation of Rs. 1,66,000/- has been awarded. However, assailing the inadequacy of the award, this appeal has been filed by the claimants. As the facts regarding accident and the death of Arun Kumar Soni and Rishi Soni has been found proved and has not been disputed even before this Court by the Insurance Company, however, to burden the judgment, detailed facts are not required to be mentioned. It is only on the point of inadequacy which has been assailed showing the documents of income-tax return of Arun Kumar Soni Exts. P/22 and P/23. While in the case of Rishi Soni, the award has been assailed on the point of inadequate amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the case of Arun Kumar Soni, cross-objection showing incorrect calculation by the Tribunal has been challenged, therefore, this appeal for enhancement of award as well as for adjudication of cross-objection, simultaneously in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been filed by the appellants.

(2.) Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that Arun Soni was having a shop of jewellery and his earning was Rs. 1,46,000/- per annum as per the income-tax return Ext. P/22 which is filed in the earlier financial year by the deceased and a subsequent income-tax return Ext. P/23 for an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- up to the period of death was furnished by the wife of the deceased. However, it is submitted that acceptance of the income return of Rs. 1,25,000/- submitted by the wife is inappropriate, in fact, the earning which was whole period of life of Rs. 1,46,000/- may be accepted and after deducting 1/3rd and applying the proper multiplier, compensation may be reasonably awarded. In the case of death of Rishi Soni aged 15 years, it is stated that looking to the brilliant career and the status of the family, adequate compensation may be awarded. Reliance has been placed in the case of R.K. Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others, 2009 3 TAC 1 (S.C.). In view of foregoing, prayer is made to enhanced the compensation.

(3.) Shri Ashish Vaidya, learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, contends that the compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. It is also contended by him that in a case of death of Arun Kumar Soni, calculation has not been properly done which may be rectified.