REKHA PARIHAR Vs. MUKESH SINGH KIRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 15.11.2008 passed by MACT Gwalior in Claim case No.154 of 2008. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,50,976/ - but out of the said amount, 30% amount was deducted towards the contributory negligence and in this way, Rs.6,65,683/ - was received by the claimants a total award with interest to the claimants for the death of one Hari Singh Parihar who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent ?

(2.) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.7,144/ - per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 17. It is submitted that the income of the deceased is assessed on lower side and looking to the number of dependents deduction of 1/3rd is on higher side. Multiplier of 17 is also on the lower side. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that there was any negligency on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle and hence, deducting 30% of the total compensation towards the contributory negligence is totally uncalled for. The accident occurred due to the fact that the driver of the offending truck applied the brake suddenly and stopped the vehicle in middle of the road due to which, the deceased dashed with the said truck from the back side. Learned tribunal has committed error in holding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of deceased. Even otherwise, learned trial Court has also not considered the fact that the deceased was working as Head Constable and he was only of the age of 35 years at the time of accident and having future prospects also. He might have been promoted during his service tenure as Inspector or Dy. Superintendent of Police. On other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi State Road Transport Corporation reported as 2009 Volume 6 SCC 1298. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.