M.A. No. 1827/2010
14-7-10
Shri Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate for the
appellants.
Today, the case is listed on default of non-
filing of application for condonation of delay.
The office has reported that the appeal is
barred by 84 days. Before adverting to the question
of condonation of delay I thought it appropriate to
hear the learned counsel for the appellants on the
merits of the case as to how in the present case the
amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced.
Submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the income of the deceased has
not been assessed appropriately.
Paragraph 17 of the award passed by the
tribunal is perused. It was the claim that the
deceased used to earn Rs.5000/- per month and he was
involved in the agricultural work and also used to
sell the vegetables. Before the tribunal, Bhuwani
Bai PW-1 stated that there is an agricultural land
but no material was produced before the tribunal to
prove that the deceased or the claimants were
holding the agricultural land. No proof in relation
to the income was submitted by the claimants. In
absence of any evidence the tribunal has taken into
account the notional income of the deceased @
M.A. No. 1827/2010
2
Rs.3000/- per month. The date of incident is
1.
l5.2007. Accordingly, the tribunal applied the
multiplier of 16 and thereby awarded a sum of
Rs.4,32,000/-. The compensation from other heads of
funeral rites, loss of consortium and loss of estate
has also been awarded and thereby the total
compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- has been awarded.
The tribunal has applied the ration of Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others,
2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Keeping in view the age of the
deceased between 31-35, the multiplier of 16 has
been applied. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra),
the Supreme Court has applied the multiplier of 15.
Thus, the tribunal itself has applied the multiplier
at a higher rate.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not think it
appropriate to permit the appellants to file
application for condonation of delay as the award
passed by the tribunal is proper. There are no
merits in the case. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
(R.K. GUPTA)
Judge
S/