Miscellaneous Appeal No. 508 of 2003 · Judicature For Rajasthan High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
appeal is allowed and it is directed that the
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 140, 173
Judgment
Shri Hari Krishan Sharma, Counsel for the appellants Smt. Archana Mantri, Counsel for the respondents *** Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of both the parties the matter has been heard finally. This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred on behalf of the claimants against the award dated 13th May, 2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, Decoity Affected Area), Bharatpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.5/1999. Facts need not be gone into in view of the short submission on which this miscellaneous appeal is being decided. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion while deciding Issue No.2 that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1800/- per month and the dependency of the claimants as Rs.1200/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. -2- C.M.A. No.508/2003 The submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased was 29- years as per the post-mortem report, Exhibit-5.
Operative part
He, therefore, submits that for a person between the age group of 25-30 multiplier of 18 has been prescribed under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 16 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance- company respondent No.3 does not dispute the fact that so far as the multiplier as provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the persons between the age of 25-30 years in the event of the death has been prescribed as 18. Looking to the aforesaid, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed and it is directed that the claimant-appellants as per award would be entitled to an amount of Rs.2,59,200/- (1200x12x18) + Rs.40,000/- as has already been awarded towards loss of consortium and love and affection, the total amount, therefore, comes to Rs.2,99,200/-. Since the learned Tribunal has deducted an amount of 25% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, in the facts and circumstances an amount of Rs.74,800/- under this head is liable to be deducted.
The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to a total amount of -3- C.M.A. No.508/2003 Rs.2,24,400/-. Since the claimants had been paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of no fault liability the aforesaid amount is also liable to be deducted. As such in terms of the award the appellants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.1,74,400/-. As per award dated 13.05.2002 the appellants have been paid an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-, as such the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.19,400/- only. The aforesaid amount of Rs.19,400/- would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this miscellaneous appeal i.e. 13.08.2002. The aforesaid amount be paid within a period of three months by means of demand draft in favour of claimant- appellant No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is allowed and it is directed that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 10 Aug 2010. The bench was DALIP 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.