AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 386 wordsRajeev Gupta, C.J.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.(C.)P. No. 1257/2004, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
M.(C.)P. No. 1257/2004, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal in hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission.
This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 02.09.2003, passed in claim case No. 10/2002,
As against the compensation of Rs.16,25,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Prayag Tandiya, for his death in the motor accident on 01.09.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitioner till the date of actual payment.
Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,52,000/-only.
The Claimants pleaded that their son Prayag Tandiya used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as Sports Instructor. -The Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex. A/7) adduced in evidence before the Tribunal, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,800/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,800/- per month.
As the Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only a sum of Rs.8007- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, we do not find any scope for interference so far as the assessment of the claimant''s dependency by the Tribunal is concerned.
The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.
We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.