NASEEM BANU Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by claimants against award dated 17.10.1997 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.1579/1992, seeking enhancement of compensation in a death claim. Learned Tribunal by its award, awarded compensation of Rs.1,63,800/- to claimants for accidental death of Liyakat Ali, husband of appellant no.1 Naseem Banu.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellants argued that learned tribunal has misread statement of appellant no.1 Naseem Banu. In this connection, he referred to discussion made by learned Tribunal while deciding Issue no.3. It was argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly mentioned that Naseem Banu has stated that she and her husband used to work together in their own power-look and earn a sum of Rs.2000/- per month. After deducting Rs.800/- on assumed income of Naseem Banu, learned Tribunal determined monthly income of deceased at Rs.1200/- only. LEARNED counsel submitted that deceased was working in his own power-loom and was not employed anywhere and, therefore, learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that deceased was earning only Rs.1200/-. LEARNED Tribunal has misread statement of AW-1 Mst. Naseem Banu. There is evidence on record adduced by claimants that deceased met with an accident. He was, in critical condition, taken to Ahmadabad in ambulance and he was subjected to treatment for four days. Nothing has been awarded by learned Tribunal for transportation and treatment during that period. He ultimately died. LEARNED counsel also submits that at relevant point of time age of deceased was 26 years and, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ? (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 17 should be applied but learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 only. LEARNED counsel further submits that award of Rs.10,000/- only cumulatively for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc. was not justified. LEARNED counsel submits that mother and father of deceased were also party, though as non-claimants, to claim petition, therefore, there being four dependents deduction of 1/4th should be made rather than 1/3rd.

(3.) APPEAL accordingly stands partly allowed.