CHANDARBAI Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 10.7.2006 passed by learned III Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 302/2005. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- with interest to the claimants. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in 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 claimant 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, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident and was Teacher by profession. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- to the appellant which is on lower side. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of deceased Rs. 10,043/- per month as. per Ex. P-10 and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and also after applying the multiplier of 13, assessed the compensation on account of loss of dependency as Rs. 8,32,000/-. It is submitted that learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, while multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on lower side.