CHAMPA JOSHI Vs. DILEEP @ DALEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dtd. 28/4/2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.7), Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.405/2005 (1946/2004), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,72,700.00 on account of death of Shiv Dutt Joshi, which occurred on 22/11/2001.

(2.) Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,700.00 under various heads in favour of the appellantsclaimants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and he was working as Class IV employee in the department of Sales Tax and at the time of his death he was earning Rs.5020.00. Learned counsel submitted that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel further submitted that under the head of conventionalhead a sum of Rs.30,000.00 has been awarded while the claimants-appellants are entitled to get Rs.70,000.00. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and award needs suitable enhancement.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has rightly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the amount of compensation, in the case after evaluating the evidence available on the record. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment dtd. 28/4/2011 does not call for any intereference by this Court and lastly, he argued that the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 16, looking to the age of the deceased, while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121, and as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier of 15 should have been applied instead of 16.