MANPHOOL Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the award dated 22. 1. 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25. 6. 1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 24. 2. 1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4)started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 1052, being driven by its driver negligently and rashly while plying the bus in wrong side hit Laxmi Narayan's scooter. Due to this accident, the three riders died on the spot. Since two other claim petitions were equally filed by the dependants of the two other riders, who had expired in the accident, the three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 22. 1. 1997. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined 9 witnesses and submitted as many as 20 documents as documentary evidence. After going through the statements of witnesses and evidence produced by the appellants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court for enhancement of the award.

(3.) MR. B. C. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant has raised four contentions before this court: firstly, according to the testimony of appellant No. l, her husband was 40 years old when he expired. In contravention of the Second Schedule, i. e. , the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10, whereas it should have applied the multiplier of 16. Secondly, although ample evidence exits to prove that the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month as he was working as a woodwork contractor, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 2,100 per month. Thirdly, no compensation has been paid by the learned tribunal for the 'loss of affection' suffered by the appellants due to the demise of their father. Lastly, no 'funeral expenses' have been paid to the family.