JUDGMENT
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1997 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 222/96 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 15000/-to 25000/-.
3. The claimant-appellant is the husband of Juhi Devi whose death was caused by reason of a motor vehicle accident on 12.5.1990 while she was crossing the road. It is alleged that the offending bus being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased which caused her death.
4. The claimant-appellant led evidence before the Tribunal regarding treatment expenses, mental agony and also the income of the deceased. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased was a earning member, rather, as a matter of fact she was simply a house wife co- operating in the work of the house. On the basis of that finding the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the treatment of the deceased and Rs. 5000/-for mental pain and agony.
5. Against the said judgment and award the claimant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 222/96. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant submitted that both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly the deceased was a house wife and was cooperating in the house work and in that view of the matter it could not have been held that she was not an earning member. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of compensation is much low and the same is liable to be enhanced.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant-appellant confined his relief before the learned Single Judge only to the extent provided under Section 140 of the said Act and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that having received the compensation amount in full and final settlement, the claimant cannot now agitate the matter again for enhancement of the compensation amount.
8. Before appreciating the submission of the learned counsel we would like to refer the relevant part of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which reads thus :–
“The present appeal has been preferred and pressed mainly on the ground that under Section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) on account of death of the deceased the claimant was entitled to a payment of Rs. 25,000/.”
9. It appears that the learned Single Judge, on the basis of that submission, proceeded to determine the amount of compensation which is payable under Section 140(2) of the said Act and enhanced the compensation to that extent.
10. Admittedly the appeal did not arise out of an interim award passed under Section 140(2) of the said Act and, therefore, even assuming that the appellant confined his claim to the extent as provided under Section 140 of the said Act we are of the view that the amount of compensation is quite unreasonable. Though no reliable evidence was led by the claimant about the earning of the deceased but even then we are of the view that the claimant should get atleast a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the death of his wife. The amount of compensation is, therefore, enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-.
11. This appeal is, therefore, allowed
and the amount of compensation finally
awarded by the learned Single Judge is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum.
Needless to say that the difference of the
amount of compensation together with interest shall be paid by the respondent-
Insurance Company within a period of eight
weeks from today.