Back
2015 Supreme(UK) 120
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta
Appeal from Order No. 359/2010
SMT. LEELA TEWARI & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
SHRI ASHOTO GOYAL & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 25.02.2015
For the Appellants :Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate
Headnote:Motor Accident — Compensation — Seeking enhancement of — Held that compensation is not a largesse or a windfall to the successors of the deceased — The basic purpose of awarding compensation is to save the successors from the starvation and to ensure that they may not be suddenly left on road in helpless situation. (Para 7)
eksVj nq?kZVuk & izfrdj esa c<+ksÙkjh dh ek¡x & /kkfjr fd e`rd ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy, ,d mnkjrk ;k vizR;kf’kr vk; ugha gS & izfrdj iznku djus dk ewy iz;kstu gS] mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkq[kejh ls cpkuk o ;g fuf’pr djuk fd og vpkud lM+d ij ykpkj fLFkfr esa u vk,¡A ¼izLrj 7½
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate, for the appellants/claimants.
2. Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent/insurance company.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that the deceased Vinod Kumar Tiwari lost his life in the accident on 8.3.2008 at the age of 54. He was Professor in the local Degree College at Haldwani. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,07,000/- to his wife and two children.
4. It is pertinent to mention that Smt. Leela Tiwari, wife of the deceased, has been working as Professor in the same degree college and, at the time of accident, she was getting salary higher than her late husband. The two sons are also major.
5. Learned Counsel for the claimants has sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that consequent upon the implementation of 6th Pay Commission Report, the salary of her deceased husband stood revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the same increased to the tune of Rs. 57,260/-, but the learned Tribunal has calculated the compensation taking his monthly salary as Rs. 40,620/-.
6. The other ground of appeal is that the multiplier of 5 has wrongly been applied, and it ought to have been 8 as the deceased was below the age of 55 years.
7. The Court is not inclined to accept these arguments of learned Counsel of the claimants for the reason that Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has repeatedly held that compensation is not a largesse or a windfall to the successors of the deceased. The basic purpose of awarding compensation is to save the successors from the starvation and to ensure that they may not be suddenly left on road in helpless situation.
8. As has been stated, in the present case, the wife of the deceased is getting handsome salary, even higher than her husband. Children have also turned major and are not dependents anymore.
9. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. No reason exists to enhance it any further.
10. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
