NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. NARMADA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three misc. appeals and cross objection arise out of common judgment /award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. All the three misc. appeals and cross objection have been filed against the judgment /award dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg (Bhatatpur)(for short 'the tribunal') in different claim petitions.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 9.4.2000 Ramdayal Sharma and his brother Rajesh Kumar Sharma and his family and relatives Mukesh, Vijay, Shashikant, Samarjeet Rajoria, Padam Singh Saini, Dinesh, Padam Singh Sain came to the house after taking 'Lagan'. After giving Lagan at Alwar, they proceeded at about 1:00 PM to Deeg in a Tata Sumo bearing No. RJ-05/C-1076. The aforesaid vehicle was being driven by Mukesh. At about 1- 1:30 PM when they reached Bagad Tiraha, the driver of the aforesaid vehicle failed to control the same as a result of which his brother, Rajesh, Vijay, Shashikant, Samarjeet, Padam Singh, Padam Sain and driver Mukesh received injuries and Ramdayal, Roop Kishore (Guddu) and Shivnarain (Jhabula) died at the spot. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. Evidence was submitted by both the parties. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the MACT after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award of compensation passed by the tribunal is very meager. The tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/ award has not considered the evidence adduced by them and erred in passing the lower amount of compensation. In the cross objection filed in SBCMA No. 2015/2003, learned counsel submits that the tribunal while deciding issue regarding quantum of compensation has assessed very lower compensation amount looking to the facts of the case. The multiplier of 5 adopted by the tribunal is also lower side and it ought to have been 8. The tribunal has committed serious error not taking into consideration the fact that deceased was earning Rs.5,000.00 per month by running a hair cutting saloon. Thus, the dependency should be on the higher side. The future prospectus of the deceased has not been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. The tribunal while passing the award has awarded interest only @ 9% p.a, whereas as per the law prevailing on the date of accident it should have been at least 12% per annum. Thus, the impugned award passed by the tribunal be enhanced.