NORAS DEVI Vs. S.E. MUDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- claimants against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2004 passed by M.A.C.T., Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 415/2002 whereby, an amount of Rs. 13,47,600/- was awarded to the appellants-claimants. Dissatisfied with the award, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that learned Tribunal committed an error while computing the compensation on account of the death of Ram Chandra in this case. He further submits that the deceased Ram chandra was working in the Hindustan Zinc Company Ltd. and an amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- per year was his salary, towards the services rendered by him. He submits that since, there are five dependents in the family of the deceased Ram Chandra , the learned Tribunal should have taken into consideration the deduction of 1/4 as an amount spent on the deceased. He submits that deduction at the rate of 1/3 is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 and The New India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors. v. Somwati and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644. He submits that no amount towards the future prospects has been taken into consideration while computing the award, therefore, the same is also required to be taken into account while recomputing the award in the present case. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of consortium to the dependent family members in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Somwati and Ors. (supra).