AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Counsel for the claimants/appellants and the learned Counsel for the insurance company are present today and they have been heard on merits. Hence, the case is being adjudicated finally.
Accident occurred on 8.6.2008 on Jaspur-Afzalgarh Road when Smt. Shakuntala was sitting as a vendor in the grocery shop run by her and the family beside the running road. A bus no. UP-15F-8412, which was allegedly driven rashly and negligently, dashed the shop. Smt. Shakuntala was badly injured and she succumbed to her injuries. A claim petition was presented by her husband and daughter demanding the compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-, whereagainst the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,76,000/- along with 6 per cent annual interest with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the age of Smt. Shakuntala was mentioned as 55 years in the post-mortem report and this age has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for choosing the multiplier of ''11'' as per the Sarla Verma case, while she was a young
lady of 39 years, as has been indicated in the transfer certificate issued by Middle School, Gangapur, wherein her date of birth is indicated as 10.7.1969. So this way, multiplier of ''15'' should be applied.
Learned Counsel for the insurance company resisted on the ground that this transfer certificate was never got proved and on the top of it, it is simply a photocopy. So, there was every chance of tampering the date of birth in such photocopy.
That apart, it can be discerned that Smt. Shakuntala was not the main and the sole bread earner of the family. It was only eventually that she was sitting in the shop, which was owned by her husband Baleshwar Singh, who is a claimant in this petition. So, the application of the exact multiplier, even on the basis of Sarla Verma case, is not universal disregard of the appreciation of the facts which vary from case to case.
So, on the question of quantum, I am satisfied that appropriate compensation has been awarded. There is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
Let the LCR be sent back.