Rajpal Singh and Others vs Gopi Singh and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'') seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ''the court below'') in Claim Case No. 79/06 (336/06), whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,05,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Smt. Gyanwati who died in the alleged accident. In the instant case, the appellants-claimants are the husband and two sons of the deceased Gyanwati. She died in the accident which has taken place on 17.8.05, when she was travelling in the Car bearing Registration NO. RJ-14-C-148 and the said car was hit by the Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-02-G-2127. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the said accident. The claim petition having been filed by the appellants, the court below has awarded the compensation as stated hereinabove.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anshul Sharma for the appellant that the court below has material erred in law in considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- ignoring the evidence that she was a retired Government servant and was getting the pension. He also submitted that the compensation deserves to be suitably increased considering the evidence on record, and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , in which it has been observed that notional income of the housewife should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Yadav for the respondent No. 2 submitted that none of the appellants were dependents on the deceased at the time of death and, therefore, they were not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency benefit. He also submitted that compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-, is just and proper and no interference is called for.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned award as also the record of the case, it appears that the deceased was a retired Government servant and was getting the pension. It is further required to be noted that the appellant No. 1 Rajpal Singh, who happened to be the husband, was examined before the court below, and he has categorically stated in his evidence that he was also a retired CMHO and was getting the pension and that his both the sons i.e. the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were doing their separate businesses since the year 1999. From the said evidence, it clearly appears that none of the appellants were as such dependents on the deceased. In any case, the court below has awarded Rs. 1,65,000/- under the head of loss of dependency benefit, Rs. 35,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the appellants and Rs. 5,000/- towards the funeral expenses and thus in all Rs. 2,05,000/-, which could not be said to be an inadequate compensation. The said amount of compensation being just and proper, no interference is called for. The judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case. It is settled position of law that just compensation means adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to the award of compensation. It should neither be niggard, nor a windfall or bonanza to the claimants. In that view of the matter, the present appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.