Dismissed

Smt. Gulab Kanwar and Ors. v. Proprietor, M/S Ritu Goods Career and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2015CMA/2059/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellants' plea for enhancement of compensation. The bench held that the Tribunal had correctly determined the amount using the appropriate formula and the appeal lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed summarily.

Smt. Gulab Kanwar and Ors. Vs Proprietor, M/S Ritu… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.2059/2013 Smt. Gulab Kanwar & Ors. V/s. Proprietor, M/s. Ritu Goods Career & Anr.

Date of Judgment

06.01.2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶8

Mr. M.S. Soni, for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellants.

¶9

Appellants-claimants, have laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, vide its award dated 19^th August, 2013. The learned Tribunal by the award impugned, while adjudicating the claim petition of the appellants under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, has determined the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,500/-.

¶10

On evaluation of the evidence and other materials available on record, learned Tribunal has found that monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- and accordingly the annual income was worked out to the tune of Rs.36,000/- and the total amount of compensation is determined.

¶11

¶12

It is trite that in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, compensation is to be determined as per the structured formula laid down in Second Schedule to the Act of 1988 and the amount of compensation is to be determined by treating the maximum annual income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-. Provision under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 has been incorporated to provide some solace to the claimants inasmuch as for such claims the claimants are not required to plead and prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and it is a welfare measure to provide minimum assistance to the bereaved family in case of death or the injured who has suffered permanent disability as the case may be. Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 is a special provision based on the principle of 'no fault liability', which is inserted by the Act No.54 of 1994.

¶13

In view of the fact that learned Tribunal has appreciated the controversy in right perspective and has awarded reasonable amount of compensation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award in this appeal.

¶14

Consequently, appeal lacks in merit and same is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.

¶15

(P.K. LOHRA) J.

¶16

a.asopa/-

Smt. Gulab Kanwar and Ors. v. Proprietor, M/S Ritu Goods Career and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gulab Kanwar and Ors. v. Proprietor, M/S Ritu Goods Career and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Jasuja and Anr. Vs Ram Prakash Midha and Ors.

Satish Kumar Jasuja Vs Rajan Setia and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Narayan Lal

C.T.O. Anti Evasion, Jodhpur Vs M/S Jai Matadi Distributors

C.T.O. Anti Evasion, Jodhpur Vs M/S Jai Matadi Distributors

Smt. Bhuri Bai Vs Mani Lal and Ors.