SATISH KUMAR Vs. RAM SWROOP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants before addressing the arguments on merits of the case submits that the Tribunal has awarded a compensation by fastening liability to the extent of 50:50 between the driver/owner of the truck bearing registration No. HYF-8495 and driver, owner and insurance company of the car bearing registration No. DL-1Z/1219. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not served, he does not press the appeal against the aforementioned respondents. Accordingly, the appeal against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stands dismissed.

(2.) As regards the enhancement of compensation viz-a-viz 50% liability fastened upon the insurer of the car, he submits that in the accident occurred on 21.08.2002, one Santosh Devi aged 26 years, who was also 24 weeks pregnant, died. The Tribunal took her income as Rs. 2100/- per month and after deducting of the same towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 17 and for unborn child awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, in total awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,85,000/-. However, for an unborn child of having equivalent pregnancy, a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusuma and another 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 180 . Even income of the deceased was to be taken as Rs. 3000/- per month instead of Rs. 2100/-.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submits that the compensation arrived at is legal and just and cannot be enhanced, except the multiplier in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 .