Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Panchu Ram and Others

There is delay of 4 days in filing the intra Court appeal. For the reasons stated in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit, delay of 4 days is condoned. Civil Misc. Application is disposed off.

Heard on the question of admission.

The intra-court appeal has preferred as against the judgment dt. 14.7.1997 passed by Single Bench in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 582/1993.

In claim petition No. 456/1993 (Old No. 441/1988), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on account of death of Mali Ram @ Pappu vide award dt. 27.07.1993.

The claim petition was preferred by the parents of deceased, namely, Panchu Ram and Smt. Bhoori aged 55 and 50 years respectively. The compensation was worked out assessing Rs. 300/- to be monthly loss of earning. Aggrieved thereby, the civil misc. appeal was, preferred/before the Single Bench. The Single Bench has enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Hence, the R.S.R.T.C. has preferred the intra Court appeal as against the quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant - R.S.R.T.C. has submitted that excessive compensation has been awarded, that too alongwith interest @ 12% per annum; as such, the compensation as well as rate of interest be reduced suitably as the accident took place in the year 1988

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has supported the order passed by Single Bench and prayed for enhancement of compensation as cross objections have been preferred. Though, the office has reported that cross objections are barred by limitation by 1328 days, however, the report in incorrect. The appeal preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. has not been admitted so far and delay in filing of appeal has been condoned today by this order itself, as such, limitation did not commence to file cross objection. It is only when appeal is admitted the cross objection can be preferred. The limitation of one month to file cross objection starts from the date of service on respondent/or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing of appeal or within such time as the appellate Court may consider fit to allow. Notice issued in the instant case was of limitation application; whether delay in filing of appeal may be condoned, it could not be said to be notice of hearing of appeal. In Kantilal and Bros. and Another Vs. Ramarani Debi and Others, it has been rightly held that the right to file cross objection arises from the date of admission of appeal, the limitation commences from date of service of notice fixed hearing of appeal.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the appeal as well as cross objections to be meritless. The age of deceased was 19-20 years. The claim petition was preferred by his parents, namely, Panchu Ram and Smt. Bhoori aged 55 and 50 years respectively. The income of non-earning member of family has been provided in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which prescribes that the income of such person can be assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Considering the future prospects also, as the deceased was young promising boy, the assessment of income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum would be appropriate. Even if the year 1988, when the accident took place, it would be reasonable to assess the income of deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum after making deduction of 1/3 amount towards self-expenditure as that amount would have been spent by the deceased on himself; had he been alive, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 10,000/-. Multiplier of 13/11 is applicable considering the age of the parents of 50 and 55 years respectively. Applying any of the multiplier, the overall amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as awarded including the customary heads cannot be said to be excessive. In our opinion, considering the rate of interest prevailing when the decision was rendered by Single Bench, the rate of interest could not be said to be excessive.

We do not find any ground so as to interfere in the rate of interest also. Consequently, the appeal as well as cross objection being meritless deserves dismissal and the same are hereby dismissed. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 467/1998 is also dismissed.

Let copy of this order be placed in both files.