ADITI BHARTI Vs. OM PRAKASH VISHNOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant -appellant wife of the deceased has instituted the instant appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the award dated 2nd June, 2010; made in her favour by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal'), for the Tribunal wrongly applied the deduction to the extent of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. Further, adequate compensation has not been awarded under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love and affection (spouse), loss of care and guidance to children and funeral expenses

(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy involved in the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation are that deceased Anand Prakash Bharati was aged about 44 years, while he died in an accident, which occurred on 29th March, 2008. While he was driving his car bearing Registration Number RJ -06 -CA -3455 with moderate speed, the offending truck bearing Registration Number RJ -19 -1G -5387, driven in a rash and negligent manner and with excess speed, collided with the car of the deceased. On institution of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim before the Tribunal; an award of Rs. 22,88,500 - has been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimant -appellant, Mr. Sandeep Mathur, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the appeal, asserted that the factual matrix is not in dispute and the award needs to be enhanced. Firstly, for in the family of the deceased, there are four members i.e. claimant -appellant (wife), mother of the deceased and two children; thus, where the number of dependent members in the family of the deceased are four to six; 1/4th amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Secondly, having regard to the compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love and affection to the parent/s, loss of care and guidance to children and funeral expenses; the amount awarded is far less than the amount ought to have been allowed in the backdrop of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v/s. Rajbir Singh & Ors.: : (2013) 9 SCC 54. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.: : (2009) 6 SCC 121.