✦ Rajasthan High Court · 12 May 2008

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1160/2002 SMT. SUSHILA GURJAR & Ors. v. GULSHAN KUMAR DATE OF ORDER :- MAY 12 & Ors.

CLAIM PETITION No. 261 of 1997GUMAN SINGH3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
12 May 2008
Bench
GUMAN SINGH

Outcome

Disposed of

appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced Rs.6,84,000/- Rs.7,84,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within…
  • Para 88. The award stand modified and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh)J. Chauhan/-

Judgment

- MAY 12, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sanjay Joshi, for the appellants. Shri S.R. Jatav, for respondents.

1.

The case has come up for admission. Counsel of both the parties agree to dispose of the case at admission stage.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal.

3.

This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the dependents of deceased Hanuman Gurjar, for enhancement of claim against the award dated May 24, 2001, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.261/1997, whereby a sum of Rs.6,84,000/- has been awarded by way of compensation to the dependents of deceased Hanuman Gurjar.

Learned counsel for the claimants appellants submitted that deceased Hanuman Gurjar was a young Advocate of 2 34 years of age and he was practicing at Dausa. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Advocate had a bright career and he had already put on 10 years practice and was conducting important sessions and civil cases in the courts. He submitted that the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.20,000/- per month and as such the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.48,000/- per year. He submitted that the compensation awarded is inadequate and hence, it deserves to be enhanced.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct and based on evidence and the record and as such this is not a case for interference by this Court. He further submitted that the deceased was an Advocate but no proof of his income such as income tax return etc. has been filed. Therefore, there has been no basis to assess the income of the deceased and the learned tribunal has made proper 3 assessment of the income in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.

6.

In view of the submissions advanced and on going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the dependency of the deceased as well as the fact that the deceased was a practicing lawyer and had a bright career, the income of the deceased seems to have been assessed on lower side. Therefore, the mount of dependency deserves to be enhanced to Rs.56,700/- instead of dependency found by the learned Tribunal at Rs.48,000/-. Thus, after deducting 1/3rd as against the expenses of the deceased and on application of multiplier of 17, the total amount of award is enhanced from Rs.6,84,000/- to Rs.7,84,000/-.

7.

Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced Rs.6,84,000/- Rs.7,84,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within a period of three months from this 4 order shall entail interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 12.10.2001.

Operative part

8.

The award stand modified and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh)J. Chauhan/-

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Rajasthan High Court, on 12 May 2008. The bench was GUMAN SINGH.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CLAIM PETITION No. 261 of 1997). ← Search more judgments