SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Raj) 777

AJAY RASTOGI
Phool Chand – Appellant
Versus
Mohanlal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vinay Mathur, for the Appellants (Claimants).
Mr. Haridevpuri for Mr. Tripurari Sharma, for the Insurance Company.

Judgment

Ajay Rastogi, J.-It is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur District (“Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 342/1993 vide award dated 211.1998.

2. Claimants are parents of deceased daughter Kumari Munni aged 5 years, who died in an accident on 15.05.1993. The Tribunal after taking note of facts placed on record, awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 73,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of claim petition till actual payment.

3. Counsel for claimants urged that even where the deceased is considered to be non-earning member in the family, his notional income has been considered of Rs. 15,000/-per annum and multiplier of 15 is adopted as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), which ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal, but without taking into consideration material on record, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 70.000/-towards loss of financial dependency and Rs. 3,000/-towards medical expenses, to the claimants, which is not adequate and justified. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) an







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top