Smt. Natho Devi & 2 others v. Julfkar Hussain & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B C KANDPAL
Outcome
Partly allowed
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified upto the extent that the appellants are entitled to get the same @ 71/2% per annum instead of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the claim…
Judgment
Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of multiplier. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of (cid:145)4(cid:146). He has submitted that according to the schedule the multiplier for the age group of 55 to 60 years must be taken as (cid:145)8(cid:146) while the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 59 years in spite of that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier on the lesser side.
Sri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of (cid:145)4(cid:146) as the deceased was 59 years of age. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased has rightly adopted the multiplier of (cid:145)4(cid:146) which is just and proper.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record. The appellants have filed salary certificate which is Paper No. 29gha. Perusal of the same, it reveals that the deceased was getting Rs. 11, 779/- per month. His annual income comes to Rs. 1,41,348/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses it comes to Rs. 94, 232/-. The Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased has adopted the multiplier of (cid:145)4(cid:146) hence, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,76, 928/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 23,246.25 on the basis of the medical bills submitted by the appellants. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/towards funeral expense and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of consortium. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,05,100/- which appears to be just and proper. I am in total agreement with the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation needs no interference.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further invited my attention towards the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lesser side.
So far as the rate of interest is concerned, I think it would be justified if interest is awarded @ 71/2% per annum instead of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Operative part
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified upto the extent that the appellants are entitled to get the same @ 71/2% per annum instead of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court.
10.4.2008 (B.C. Kandpal, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
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.