SAMRATHA RAM Vs. HARI BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the contesting respondent-insurer having appeared in response to the notice issued in this case, for the record having also been received, for the short point involved, and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, at request, matter has been heard finally at this stage.

(2.) For quantification of compensation to be awarded in relation to the parents and brother of the vehicular accident victim Jeeva Ram (about 25-30 years in age), the Tribunal has taken note of the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month while working as a khalasi with one Veerdarshan Travels and was further getting Rs. 30/- per day in allowance; and with reference to the age of the deceased, the salary certificate Ex.6, and statement of AW-3 - Gopal Ram, the employer of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 30,000/- per annum; and after deducting one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased, has put an estimate on the loss of dependency at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. With the observation that the age of the father of the deceased was 70 years, that of his mother 68 years, and that of his brother 12-13 years; and further that the deceased was an unmarried person and was likely to get married soon, the Tribunal has considered it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 7 to assess pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,40,000/- (20,000 x 7). While allowing Rs. 6,000/- each to the father and mother of the victim and Rs. 1,000/- to the brother towards non-pecuniary loss, and further Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has assessed total loss for the claimants at Rs. 1,55,000/-.

(3.) While making the award in the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- in favour of the claimants, the Tribunal has observed that after adjustment of the amount received under No Fault Liability, the claimants would be entitled for interest from the date of filing of the claim application but then has observed that the claimants ought to have concluded their evidence within three months from the date of framing of issues and in the present case issues were framed on 08.07.2002, therefore, the claimants ought to have concluded their evidence by 15.10.2002 but as they concluded their evidence only on 07.01.2004 hence would not be entitled for interest for this period, i.e., from 16.10.2002 to 07.01.2004.