SHOBHA Vs. NANURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar vide Award dated 3.2.2005 in MACT case No. 215/1999.

(2.) Claimants are wife, five minor children and parents of deceased Ramavatar, who died in motor accident on 2.6.1999. As alleged in claim petition, deceased was owner of one cold storage and was operating one Truck which he purchased on hire purchase scheme, out of which he used to spare Rs. 7,000/- per month for financial assistance to his family. But it is not in dispute that the deceased was not Tax payer meaning thereby his income was less than taxable income at relevant time. After the claim was filed, matter was taken up in Lok Adalat where claimants agreed for lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lacs but for some technical reasons, insurer had not accepted that compensation settled in negotiations for amicable compromise among parties in course of Lok Adalat. Except oral testimony of claimants, nothing was placed on record in support of, their statements with regard to income of deceased and there was no material to show income from other sources deposed in evidence. In absence of cogent material, after taking note of totality of fact brought on record, including consent of claimants extended in amicable settlement negotiations in course of Lok Adalat, Tribunal finally awarded total compensation of Rs. 5 lacs with interest 6% from the date of claim petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for appellants submits that though consent was extended by claimants in December, 2002 and if amount would have. been paid at that time in course of amicable compromise negotiations during Lok Adalat, atleast that amount could have been deposited for investment where it could have carried higher interest than awarded by Tribunal and once consent was not carried out by respondents at relevant point of time, and matter was adjudicated upon merits, Tribunal was under obligation to examine material while determining just compensation and it ought not to have took note of amount agreed allegedly in course of Lok Adalat; as such finding recorded in awarding impugned compensation being not supported by material on record, requires interference by this Court.