An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award granting `17,25,032/‐ compensation for a motor accident death. The High Court held there was no scope to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
No order as to costs; appeal dismissed with no enhancement of compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Appeal From Order No. 412 of 2012
…………….. Appellants
Versus
………….. Respondents
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the appellants. Mr. P.C.Maulekhi, Advocate, present for respondent no. 3.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J.
This appeal, preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 15.03.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/ III Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim petition no. 106 of 2009, whereby the tribunal has directed the respondent
2
no. 3 to pay compensation to the tune of ` 17,25,032/‐ with 6% interest per annum there on.
3
4
(ii) Whether the bus involved in the accident was not being driven with valid papers? (iii) Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
(iv) To what compensation if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom?
5
petition is 22,15,000/‐. The tribunal has already awarded 17,25,032/‐ with 6% per annum there on.
6
such circumstances it cannot be said that more financial loss has been suffered by the appellants than what has been awarded to them.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.05.2013
Parul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal below should be enhanced for the appellants.
Whether there is any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Whether the deceased's salary should have been projected with a future increment of 50% for higher compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport CorporationReferred¶39
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation AIR 09 SC 3104
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pal Singh
Smt. Bala Devi
Km. Pooja
Karam Singh Negi
Jagdish Prasad Mamgai
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
