Vandana and Others vs Madanlal and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—Heard on IA No. 8362/2005, which is an application for condonation of delay. Delay is of one day. Sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay. Hence, application is allowed.

With the consent of parties, heard on merits.

Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 30.4.2005 passed by IIIrd MACT, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 44/2004, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,07,000 has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum, the present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident. Breakup of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is as under:

Towards loss of dependency : Rs. 2,99,200 Towards transport charges : Rs. 15,000 Towards loss of consortium : Rs. 5,000 Towards funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that while calculating loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17, while looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. Similarly, the learned Tribunal committed error in not assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,200 per month. It is submitted that deceased was working at two places, firstly as Generator Operator in Life Insurance Corporation, Rajasthan and secondly as Supervisor at Mayank Hotel. It is submitted that income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 4,000 per month. It is also submitted that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of love and affection to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and towards loss of estate.

Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that amount awarded is at higher side. It is submitted that Exhibit P-7 is the certificate on the basis of which the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 2,200 per month. It is submitted that from perusal of the document Exhibits P-3 and P-5 from the naked eyes it is apparent that the signatures has been obtained on a blank letter pad and paper thereafter certificate has been prepared as there is a gap between the certificate and the signature of 2 inches. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that so far as Certificate Exhibit P-5 is concerned, in which it is shown that deceased was working as Supervisor, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved because the certificate itself is issued on plain paper and no cogent evidence has been produced to substantiate that deceased was working in the Hotel. Learned Counsel further submits that age of the deceased as per the post-mortem report was 32, therefore, multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied.

After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. The certificate Exhibit P-3 creates doubt about its genuineness. However, since there is no cross-examination made on behalf of respondent No. 3, before learned Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be controverted before this Court. So far as another certificate Exhibit P-5 which is alleged to have been issued by the Proprietor of Hotel Mayank is on a plain paper and no register has been produced to demonstrate that deceased was working in the Hotel with other co-employees. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved on the certificate.

It is true that on account of loss of love and affection towards appellant Nos. 2 to 4, no amount has been awarded. Since, sum of Rs. 3,07,000 has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, even if no amount has been awarded towards love and affection then also appellant is not entitled for any further enhancements.

With the above observations, appeal stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

CC as per rules.