[1] Court No. - 27 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1194 of 2008 Petitioner :- Union Of India Through The Dir. General Central Reserve Respondent :- Smt. Ram Dulari Petitioner Counsel :- Asit Kumar Chaturvedi Respondent Counsel :- Nad Kishore Singh Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
1. Heard on the CMA No.35149 of 2009: Application for Recall of the Order
dated 23.3.2009 and for restoring the F.A.F.O., to its original number.
2. Ground shown, seems sufficient.
3. The application is allowed. The order dated 23.3.2000 is recalled. The
appeal is restored to its original number.
4. Heard Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
N.K. Singh learned counsel for the respondents claimants.
5. Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been
preferred by the appellants Union of India and another, for setting aside the
award dated 26.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/District Judge, Pratapgarh.
6. In brief, the deceased Banshi Lal on 15.7.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. in the
morning, while riding his bicycle, was going from his house to the school in
village Syed Yasinpur. When he arrived at Dadupur Bariyawan, an RAF
vehicle DCM No.DL/LA3078 hit the deceased from right side, driven
rashly and negligently. The deceased was brought to PHC, Kunda. Later
on, he was shifted to Medical College, Allahabad but he succumbed to
injuries before arriving to the hospital at Allahabad. An F.I.R. was lodged
and the dependants of deceased, approached the Tribunal claiming
compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
7. The Tribunal framed three issues. The first issue relates to the accident
[2]
which occurred on 15.7.2006, second issue relates to rash negligent plying
of the vehicle. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was hit by
vehicle in question causing serious injuries and later on, he succumbed to
those injuries. The third issue relates to the compensation to which the
claimants respondents are entitled to.
8. The deceased was employed as Principal, in Junior High School, Syed
Yasinpur and his monthly salary was Rs.15,208/-. However, salary bill filed
before the Tribunal indicates that total income in hand of the deceased was
Rs.16,597/- per month. The income includes house rent allowance, life
insurance and other benefits after deducting HRA etc. The Tribunal held
the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.16,000/- for payment
of compensation. 1/3 amount was deducted in lieu of expenses during
deceased’s life which has been ascertained as 59 years. Under Schedule 2 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 6 has been applied by the Tribunal
holding that the dependants are entitled for payment of compensation to the
tune of Rs.7,68,024/-, for loss of consortium,Rs.5,000/-, and for funeral
expenses Rs.2000/-. Keeping in view the Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, total compensation awarded to the dependants of the deceased is
Rs.7,75,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any substantial
illegality or perversity in the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The
multiplier of 6 applied by the Tribunal does not seem to be excessive and is
in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has
given interest at the rate of 6%. Keeping in view the recent judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the rate of interest should have been 9% or 10%.
However, since the respondents claimants have not filed any cross appeal
for enhancement of compensation or rate of interest, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest, attains finality. In view of
the above, the judgment and order does not seem to suffer from any
infirmity or illegality.
[3]
10. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The amount
deposited in this Court, shall be released forthwith in favour of the
respondents claimants and the compensation shall be paid in terms of the
proportion decided by the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010
Rajneesh) [S.C. Chaurasia, J.] [ Devi Prasad Singh, J.]