Dismissed

Pramila Devi W/O Narendra Kumar v. Raju Singh Son of Goma Singh

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2019CMA/220/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal where appellants challenged the compensation award in a motor accident case involving death of Yogesh Kumar. The court held the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,53,300 was correct, rejecting future prospects compensation and condoning the 80-day delay. The appeal lacks merit. (2 of 3)

What did the court decide?

Compensation award of Rs. 4,53,300 affirmed; future prospects claim rejected; appeal dismissed.

Pramila Devi W/O Narendra Kumar Vs Raju Singh Son of… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 220/2019

¶3

Pramila Devi W/o Narendra Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Hill Town, Saraswati School, Ward No. 47, District Ajmer

¶4

Narendra Kumar Son Of Mishri Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Hill Town, Saraswati School, Ward No. 47, District Ajmer

¶5

Akash Kumar Son Of Narendra Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Hill Town, Saraswati School, Ward No. 47, District Ajmer

¶6

Parul Daughter Of Narendra Kumar, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Hill Town, Saraswati School, Ward No. 47, District Ajmer

¶7

Santosh Wife Of Mishri Lal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Hill Town, Saraswati School, Ward No. 47, District Ajmer

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Raju Singh Son Of Goma Singh, By Caste Singh, Resident Of Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, District Ajmer (Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj-01-Ss-6907)

¶11

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At 16, Aana Sagar Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Having Its Regional Office At Khatipura Turn, Sirsi Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager (Insurer Motor Cycle No. Rj-01-Ss-6907)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment / Order

17/01/2019

(2 of 3)

[CMA-220/2019]

For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application is allowed. Delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

The present appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants challenging the award dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short ‘the tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. The tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased.

¶23

Heard and considered.

¶24

Claim-petition was filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation on account of death of Yogesh Kumar. As per second schedule of the Act, income of the deceased was rightly taken by the tribunal as Rs.39,600/- per annum. The tribunal is also right in deducting one third of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.26,400/-(39,6001/3x39,600) per annum. Deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Thus, the amount of compensation receivable by the appellants comes to Rs.4,48,800 (26,400X17). The appellants further has been awarded Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses and

¶25

(3 of 3) [CMA-220/2019]

¶26

Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In this way, Rs.4,53,300/(4,48,800+2,000+2,500) has been granted by the tribunal as compensation.

¶27

So far as the future prospects of the deceased are concerned, in my considered view, the same cannot be granted in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the “Act of 1988”.

¶28

The amount of compensation granted by the tribunal does not require any enhancement.

¶29

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

Mohit72

Pramila Devi W/O Narendra Kumar v. Raju Singh Son of Goma Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Devi W/O Narendra Kumar v. Raju Singh Son of Goma Singh

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Indra Devi and Ors.

Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs Roopa and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Geeta Devi and Others

Jen P H E D Ajmer and Ors. Vs Shakoor and Ors.

Sartauddin Vs Pratap Singh and Ors.

Hanuman Prasad Vs Vikas Butolia and Ors.