Compensation in motor accident claims must be 'just', fair, and reasonable, ensuring it is neither a pittance nor a windfall or source of profit for the claimants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-21269-CII-2018

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 127 days in filing the appeal.

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 127 days delay in filing the appeal is as under:-

“2. That the appellant could not able to contact with the counsel in time due to his illness and accordingly alongwith requisite document contact with a counsel for filing the appeal, thereafter the instant appeal has been prepared and filed and in doing so inadvertently the period of limitation has been exceed.”

The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufÏcient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 127 days in filing the present appeal.

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 127 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-6018-2018 (O&M)

By way of the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,43,800/- awarded by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 31.08.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 61 dated 11.03.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The said Claim Petition had been filed by 45-year-old father; 41-year-old mother; and 15-year-old sister of the deceased Parveen, who was 21 years old at time of accident. Present appellant who is the widow of the deceased, was performa respondent No.5 in the said Claim Petition. Vide the impugned Award of the total compensation amount of Rs.12,43,800/-, Rs.5 lacs has been awarded to claimant No.2- mother of the deceased; and Rs.7,43,800/- has been awarded to the present appellant. Claimants no.1, 3, and 4 are the performa respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 herein.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Parveen had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 05.03.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Trolla bearing registration No. TN-52D-2368 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.3; and insured by respondent No.4. The Tribunal awarded above said compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement by submitÝng that learned Tribunal has warded less amount under the conventional heads in-as-much only an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; whereas the claimants are entitled to 48,400/- each as loss of consortium to claimant No.2-mother and the appellant; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. It is submitted that interest awarded is also on the lower side.

It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the compensation be enhanced in the above manner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. D.K.Prajapati, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4-Insurance Company and submits that mediation was going on between the appellant and respondent No.4-Insurance Company in which Insurance Company has assigned the case to him.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in excess of what is entitled to the appellant. Learned Tribunal had made addition of 50% future prospects; whereas as per law, addition of only 40% could have been made. Even if the consortium is awarded to the appellant and claimant No.2/mother; and addition of 40% is made, still the compensation shall be less than what is already awarded by learned Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

No other argument is r