High CourtsSingle Bench

Lekhraj Sharma vs Suraj Prakash

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 6 February 2009 · Citation: (2009) 3 WLN 89

HON’BLE JUDGES
Guman Singh, J
Ask AI about this case

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

7 paragraphs · 372 words

Guman Singh, J.—With the consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage and is being disposed of at this stage.

2.

This appeal has been preferred by the dependents of deceased Savitri wife of Lekh Raj for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 3, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 01.08.2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- was awarded by way of compensation on account of death caused in the accident of Smt. Savitri.

3.

The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.

4.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation as the Tribunal has only assessed income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum which is on lower side. It is further submitted that for loss of consortium, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded which should have been at least Rs. 15,000/-.

5.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that deceased Smt. Savitri was a house wife and she was also doing manual labour but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum and there being no basis to interfere the same. The yearly amount of earning appears to be reasonable and calls for no interference. The amount awarded by way of consortium deserves to be enhanced to additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- and the appeal deserves to be disposed of accordingly.

7.

Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall get a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 29.10.2005, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged.