AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.—This is appeal by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 25.09.2008.
The appellants filed claim petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation for the death of Harjit Kaur in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased was daughter-in-law of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and mother of minor appellants Nos. 3 and 4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
The deceased was housewife, aged 39 years. The learned Tribunal assessed the pecuniary value of the services rendered by the deceased as housewife to be Rs. 2500/- per month i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and calculated the compensation to be Rs. 4,50,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2000/- as non-pecuniary damages. The compensation was awarded to minor appellants Nos. 3 and 4 only by observing that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to compensation because the deceased was not rendering any services to them.
Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the income of the deceased should have been assessed to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which is the maximum amount permissible in a petition u/s 163A of the Act. However, in the absence of any evidence, the pecuniary value of household services being rendered by the deceased could favourably be taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month instead of Rs. 2500/- per month as determined by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased although it was mandatory to do so in view of the Second Schedule to the Act which is applicable in a claim petition u/s 163 A of the Act. Consequently, if calculated in this manner, the compensation amount would come to much less than that awarded by the Tribunal. Even if multiplier of 16 is applied instead of multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal, even then the compensation amount would come to much less than that awarded by the Tribunal.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellants still was not ready to withdraw the instant appeal, although the same is completely frivolous and meritless. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be deposited with Lawyers Welfare Fund of High Court Bar Association by appellant No. 1.