BABU LAL & ANOTHER Vs. KESHARAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 29.11.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, in Claim Case No. 211/2010.

(2.) The brief facts noticed are that one Rumali who was aged about 9 years, on the fateful day of 14.1.2010 while returning home from her father's field on foot, near the restaurant (dhaba) of one Nanda Prajapat, met with an accident by a vehicle bearing no. RJ 19JB 2937, which came from Sawai Madhopur side, being driven in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. Consequent thereto she received grievous injuries to which she succumbed. FIR was lodged and challan was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Kesharam. Thereafter, claim was filed and it is admitted that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.1,80,000, which is assailed herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Rumali was a bright child and a brilliant student and on account of the unfortunate death on account of the accident, she lost her life and the parents have suffered a lot on account of the untimely death of their daughter. He further contends that everything has been proved but the amount allowed is much on the lower side and needs enhancement. He further contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has adopted Rs.30,000 per annum as the notional income, even in the case of children, whereas the Tribunal has allowed a lump sum amount of Rs.1,80,000 only. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in this regard of Kishan Gopal & Another v. Lala & Others, 2014 1 SCC 244 and other judgments, which have been considered by the Apex Court, and also judgment of this Court in the case of Manju Devi & Another v. Shankar Singh & Others,2014 RAR 147 (Raj.) which has also considered the judgments of the Apex Court wherein the age of the child was 7 years. In that case this court allowed an amount of Rs.5,60,000. He thus, contended that in the light of the said judgment, the amount is required to be enhanced.