AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is the appeal for enhancement of the award presented by the claimants against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2016 rendered by the Tribunal.
The accident occurred on 29.5.2012 when Jitendra Singh, a youth of 31 years, was travelling on his motorcycle, he was dashed by some tractor. The details disquisitions regarding the accident have been dealt with by the Tribunal granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,29,726/- along with 7.5 per cent annual interest with effect from the date of presentation of the petition till the actual payment.
The deceased was employed as a Data Entry Operator in Gymkhana Club, Delhi. Accident occurred near Ramnagar in District Nainital. Since the United India Insurance Company has already made the payment, so, the Court is not inclined to enter into the details of the veracity and truthfulness of the accident and more so, because by means of this appeal, only the quantum has been challenged by the appellants on the following grounds:
(i) Smt. Mameshi and Mr. Surendra Singh, the parents of the deceased, were pleaded to be the dependants of the deceased, but the Tribunal has denied such dependency on the ground of deposition of Smt. Shobha (wife of the deceased) that although the parents of Jitendra Singh reside with her, but Surendra Singh is employed in the club independently.
The Court can assume that his employment would not have been honourary, but certainly he would be getting some remuneration for rendering his services to the club. So, the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the Smt. Mameshi and Mr. Surendra Singh were not dependants of the deceased does not suffer with any infirmity.
(ii) Learned Counsel of the appellants has argued that in the year 2012, since 1.4.2012 to the next four months, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 48,084/-, while the Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the last preceding financial year for evaluating the base income of the deceased and that was Rs. 1,28,577/-.
On perusal of paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, I feel that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in evaluating the whole compensation on the basis of his total income in the last preceding year of his death because such income has been augmented by further Rs. 64,289/- considering the annual increments in rest of his life. The job of the deceased was quite private in nature I think the whole compensation has been awarded quite liberally. However, the Court is not propensous to make any comment in this regard because such payment has already been made by the insurance company, as admitted by the learned Counsel for the insurer in the Court.
I find no force in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. Let the LCR be sent back.