Skip to content


Smt. Sunder W/O Shri Sheoji Vs. Rameshwar Dass and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal from the Order No. 1262 of 1985
Judge
Reported in(1992)101PLR520
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110CC
AppellantSmt. Sunder W/O Shri Sheoji
RespondentRameshwar Dass and ors.
Appellant Advocate G.S. Bawa, Adv.
Respondent Advocate R.C. Setia, Addl. A.G. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or..........spent by the deceased himself. he had applied multiplier of 16. dissatisfied with the award of the tribunal, claimants have come up in appeal in this court.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that the learned tribunal erred in holding that the claimants dependency was only rs. 150/- per month. considering the status of the family, it can reasonably be held that the deceased was spending about rs. 150/- himself and the balance on the claimants. consequently dependency would come to rs. 325/- per month. there is nothing wrong in applying multiplier of 16. if the dependency is calculated at rs 325/- per month and multiplier of 16 is applied, compensation will be much more than rs. 40,000/-. since, the claim was only for rs. 40,000/- the award of the.....
Judgment:

R.S. Mongia, J.

1. One Jai Singh was working as field Officer in the office of the Assistant Cotton Development Authority, Fatehabad, District Hissar. On October 19, 1982 said Jai Singh was travelling in a bus run by Motroia Bus Service which met with an accident with a Haryana Roadways Bus. Unfortunately, said Jai Singh died in the accident. His widow Savitri and his mother Shmt. Sunder Devi filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa in which they claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after holding that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving by Rameshwar Dass, driver, Roadways, Sirsa, awarded Rs. 28,800/- as compensation to the claimants. It may be observed that the deceased at that time was drawing Rs. 475 per month and his age was about 25 years. It may, however, be mentioned that the claimants had claimed compensation only of Rs. 40,000/-.

2. The tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation held that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased was only to the tune of Rs. 150.00 and the balance of the salary was being spent by the deceased himself. He had applied multiplier of 16. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, claimants have come up in appeal in this court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned tribunal erred in holding that the claimants dependency was only Rs. 150/- per month. Considering the status of the family, it can reasonably be held that the deceased was spending about Rs. 150/- himself and the balance on the claimants. Consequently dependency would come to Rs. 325/- per month. There is nothing wrong in applying multiplier of 16. If the dependency is calculated at Rs 325/- per month and multiplier of 16 is applied, compensation will be much more than Rs. 40,000/-. Since, the claim was only for Rs. 40,000/- the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.

4. The appeal is consequently allowed to the extent that the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs 40,000/- They are further held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the claimants as observed above within three months from the receipt of this order after deducting the amount already paid, if any, failing which the amount awarded shall carry 12% interest from the date of the award till the date of the realisation. The amount will be apportioned in the same ratio as was done by the Tribunal between the two claimants-appellants i. e. mother will be entitled Rs. 10,000/- whereas widow would be entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/-. This will, however, be subject to the amount already paid.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //