Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Decided On : Oct-05-2007

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.S.',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur District',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Narayan',
			(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 5 => 'Babulal',
			(int) 6 => 'Babulal'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 1 => 'a period of',
			(int) 2 => 'one month',
			(int) 3 => '1052',
			(int) 4 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 5 => '40 years old',
			(int) 6 => '5,000 per month',
			(int) 7 => '1998',
			(int) 8 => 'today',
			(int) 9 => '40 years old',
			(int) 10 => '40 years old',
			(int) 11 => '1988',
			(int) 12 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 13 => '12 16',
			(int) 14 => 'a period of',
			(int) 15 => 'two months',
			(int) 16 => 'a period of',
			(int) 17 => 'one month'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Judicial',
			(int) 9 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 10 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Manphool',
			(int) 14 => 'Nathulal',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Manphool',
			(int) 18 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1,83,000',
			(int) 1 => '25.6.1994',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => 'three',
			(int) 6 => 'two',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'three',
			(int) 9 => '9',
			(int) 10 => 'as many as 20',
			(int) 11 => 'four',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '10',
			(int) 14 => '16',
			(int) 15 => '2,100',
			(int) 16 => '1.Heard',
			(int) 17 => '4',
			(int) 18 => '9',
			(int) 19 => 'two',
			(int) 20 => '35 to 40',
			(int) 21 => '16',
			(int) 22 => 'only 10',
			(int) 23 => '16',
			(int) 24 => '4',
			(int) 25 => '6',
			(int) 26 => '5,000',
			(int) 27 => '6,000',
			(int) 28 => 'four to five',
			(int) 29 => '100',
			(int) 30 => '5,000',
			(int) 31 => '6,000',
			(int) 32 => '2001]1SCR8',
			(int) 33 => '5,000',
			(int) 34 => '1,666',
			(int) 35 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 36 => '5,000',
			(int) 37 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 38 => '5,000',
			(int) 39 => '3,334',
			(int) 40 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 41 => '5,000',
			(int) 42 => '5,000'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '15 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '6 per cent'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Laxmi Narayan',
			(int) 1 => '24.2.1994 Laxmi',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'B.C. Rawat',
			(int) 4 => 'Kaushnuma Begum v.',
			(int) 5 => 'Nos',
			(int) 6 => 'Nos'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Nai Mata Mandir'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'firstly',
			(int) 1 => 'Secondly',
			(int) 2 => 'Thirdly'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Second Schedule'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one fine morning'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hindu'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '771084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Manphool and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.8. Funerals are not cheap. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.(c) Appellants should be paid Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-10-05',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.S. Chauhan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Chauhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25.6.1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4) started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 1052, being driven by its driver negligently and rashly while plying the bus in wrong side hit Laxmi Narayan's scooter. Due to this accident, the three riders died on the spot. Since two other claim petitions were equally filed by the dependants of the two other riders, who had expired in the accident, the three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 22.1.1997. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined 9 witnesses and submitted as many as 20 documents as documentary evidence. After going through the statements of witnesses and evidence produced by the appellants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. B.C. Rawat, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four contentions before this court: firstly, according to the testimony of appellant No. 1, her husband was 40 years old when he expired. In contravention of the Second Schedule, i.e., the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10, whereas it should have applied the multiplier of 16. Secondly, although ample evidence exits to prove that the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month as he was working as a woodwork contractor, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 2,100 per month. Thirdly, no compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal for the 'loss of affection' suffered by the appellants due to the demise of their father. Lastly, no 'funeral expenses' have been paid to the family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Vide order dated 15.2.2007 this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to send a notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation, as no one had appeared on their behalf despite service of the notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation as far back as 1998. However, even today no one has appeared to assist this Court on their behalf. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of any assistance from the respondent No. 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the award and examined the record which is available before this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to Manphool, AW 4, her husband was 40 years old at the time of his death. Nathulal, AW 9, also states that his father was 40 years old when he expired. The testimonies of these two witnesses have not been demolished in the cross-examination with regard to the age of deceased. According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case the age of the victim is 35 to 40 then a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. But, without giving any cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Both according to Manphool, AW 4 and Babulal, AW 6, the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Babulal states that the deceased was working as a contractor and had employed four to five persons under him. He used to pay Rs. 100 to the employees; he would manufacture furniture and would also do the woodwork in new houses and buildings. According to this witness also, deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. The said testimony, that too of an independent witness, has not been shattered in the cross-examination. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the testimony of the witnesses is not demolished with regard to income of the deceased, the same should be accepted by learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 per month. In order to calculate the loss of dependency Rs. 1,666 (1/3rd of the said amount) should be deducted from the income as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. For small children, who have lost their father in a sudden accident, it is a traumatic experience which the innocent child is unable to realise and unable to express. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill the void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt, the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. Neither theologically, nor philosophically, nor practically does he have any answer for why fate cruelly snatching his/her father at a young age? The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; it is a legal duty to be observed solemnly by learned Claims Tribunal. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to grant the compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Funerals are not cheap. Considering the fact that Hindu last rites are an elaborate affair both on the date of the cremation and during the post-cremation period, it is surprising that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the funeral expenses. The funeral expenses would not only include the actual expenses incurred by the family for arranging the last rites, but would also include the post-funeral ceremonies to be performed by the appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 5,000 should be paid to the appellants under the heading of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 22.1.1997 shall stand modified as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The loss of dependency should be calculated as Rs. 3,334 12 16 = Rs. 6,40,128.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 should be paid Rs. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Appellants should be paid Rs. 5,000 in the category of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,60,128 after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months along with interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 15.6.1994 till the date of realisation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ1104',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '771084'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.S.',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur District',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Narayan',
		(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 5 => 'Babulal',
		(int) 6 => 'Babulal'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 1 => 'a period of',
		(int) 2 => 'one month',
		(int) 3 => '1052',
		(int) 4 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 5 => '40 years old',
		(int) 6 => '5,000 per month',
		(int) 7 => '1998',
		(int) 8 => 'today',
		(int) 9 => '40 years old',
		(int) 10 => '40 years old',
		(int) 11 => '1988',
		(int) 12 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 13 => '12 16',
		(int) 14 => 'a period of',
		(int) 15 => 'two months',
		(int) 16 => 'a period of',
		(int) 17 => 'one month'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Judicial',
		(int) 9 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 10 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Manphool',
		(int) 14 => 'Nathulal',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Manphool',
		(int) 18 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1,83,000',
		(int) 1 => '25.6.1994',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => 'three',
		(int) 6 => 'two',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'three',
		(int) 9 => '9',
		(int) 10 => 'as many as 20',
		(int) 11 => 'four',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '10',
		(int) 14 => '16',
		(int) 15 => '2,100',
		(int) 16 => '1.Heard',
		(int) 17 => '4',
		(int) 18 => '9',
		(int) 19 => 'two',
		(int) 20 => '35 to 40',
		(int) 21 => '16',
		(int) 22 => 'only 10',
		(int) 23 => '16',
		(int) 24 => '4',
		(int) 25 => '6',
		(int) 26 => '5,000',
		(int) 27 => '6,000',
		(int) 28 => 'four to five',
		(int) 29 => '100',
		(int) 30 => '5,000',
		(int) 31 => '6,000',
		(int) 32 => '2001]1SCR8',
		(int) 33 => '5,000',
		(int) 34 => '1,666',
		(int) 35 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 36 => '5,000',
		(int) 37 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 38 => '5,000',
		(int) 39 => '3,334',
		(int) 40 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 41 => '5,000',
		(int) 42 => '5,000'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '15 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '6 per cent'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Laxmi Narayan',
		(int) 1 => '24.2.1994 Laxmi',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'B.C. Rawat',
		(int) 4 => 'Kaushnuma Begum v.',
		(int) 5 => 'Nos',
		(int) 6 => 'Nos'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Nai Mata Mandir'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'firstly',
		(int) 1 => 'Secondly',
		(int) 2 => 'Thirdly'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Second Schedule'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one fine morning'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hindu'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '771084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Manphool and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.8. Funerals are not cheap. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.(c) Appellants should be paid Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-10-05',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.S. Chauhan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Chauhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25.6.1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4) started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 1052, being driven by its driver negligently and rashly while plying the bus in wrong side hit Laxmi Narayan's scooter. Due to this accident, the three riders died on the spot. Since two other claim petitions were equally filed by the dependants of the two other riders, who had expired in the accident, the three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 22.1.1997. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined 9 witnesses and submitted as many as 20 documents as documentary evidence. After going through the statements of witnesses and evidence produced by the appellants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. B.C. Rawat, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four contentions before this court: firstly, according to the testimony of appellant No. 1, her husband was 40 years old when he expired. In contravention of the Second Schedule, i.e., the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10, whereas it should have applied the multiplier of 16. Secondly, although ample evidence exits to prove that the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month as he was working as a woodwork contractor, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 2,100 per month. Thirdly, no compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal for the 'loss of affection' suffered by the appellants due to the demise of their father. Lastly, no 'funeral expenses' have been paid to the family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Vide order dated 15.2.2007 this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to send a notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation, as no one had appeared on their behalf despite service of the notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation as far back as 1998. However, even today no one has appeared to assist this Court on their behalf. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of any assistance from the respondent No. 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the award and examined the record which is available before this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to Manphool, AW 4, her husband was 40 years old at the time of his death. Nathulal, AW 9, also states that his father was 40 years old when he expired. The testimonies of these two witnesses have not been demolished in the cross-examination with regard to the age of deceased. According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case the age of the victim is 35 to 40 then a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. But, without giving any cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Both according to Manphool, AW 4 and Babulal, AW 6, the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Babulal states that the deceased was working as a contractor and had employed four to five persons under him. He used to pay Rs. 100 to the employees; he would manufacture furniture and would also do the woodwork in new houses and buildings. According to this witness also, deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. The said testimony, that too of an independent witness, has not been shattered in the cross-examination. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the testimony of the witnesses is not demolished with regard to income of the deceased, the same should be accepted by learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 per month. In order to calculate the loss of dependency Rs. 1,666 (1/3rd of the said amount) should be deducted from the income as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. For small children, who have lost their father in a sudden accident, it is a traumatic experience which the innocent child is unable to realise and unable to express. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill the void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt, the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. Neither theologically, nor philosophically, nor practically does he have any answer for why fate cruelly snatching his/her father at a young age? The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; it is a legal duty to be observed solemnly by learned Claims Tribunal. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to grant the compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Funerals are not cheap. Considering the fact that Hindu last rites are an elaborate affair both on the date of the cremation and during the post-cremation period, it is surprising that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the funeral expenses. The funeral expenses would not only include the actual expenses incurred by the family for arranging the last rites, but would also include the post-funeral ceremonies to be performed by the appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 5,000 should be paid to the appellants under the heading of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 22.1.1997 shall stand modified as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The loss of dependency should be calculated as Rs. 3,334 12 16 = Rs. 6,40,128.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 should be paid Rs. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Appellants should be paid Rs. 5,000 in the category of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,60,128 after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months along with interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 15.6.1994 till the date of realisation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ1104',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '771084'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.S.',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur District',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Narayan',
			(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 5 => 'Babulal',
			(int) 6 => 'Babulal'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 1 => 'a period of',
			(int) 2 => 'one month',
			(int) 3 => '1052',
			(int) 4 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 5 => '40 years old',
			(int) 6 => '5,000 per month',
			(int) 7 => '1998',
			(int) 8 => 'today',
			(int) 9 => '40 years old',
			(int) 10 => '40 years old',
			(int) 11 => '1988',
			(int) 12 => '22.1.1997',
			(int) 13 => '12 16',
			(int) 14 => 'a period of',
			(int) 15 => 'two months',
			(int) 16 => 'a period of',
			(int) 17 => 'one month'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Judicial',
			(int) 9 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 10 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Manphool',
			(int) 14 => 'Nathulal',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Manphool',
			(int) 18 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1,83,000',
			(int) 1 => '25.6.1994',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => 'three',
			(int) 6 => 'two',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'three',
			(int) 9 => '9',
			(int) 10 => 'as many as 20',
			(int) 11 => 'four',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '10',
			(int) 14 => '16',
			(int) 15 => '2,100',
			(int) 16 => '1.Heard',
			(int) 17 => '4',
			(int) 18 => '9',
			(int) 19 => 'two',
			(int) 20 => '35 to 40',
			(int) 21 => '16',
			(int) 22 => 'only 10',
			(int) 23 => '16',
			(int) 24 => '4',
			(int) 25 => '6',
			(int) 26 => '5,000',
			(int) 27 => '6,000',
			(int) 28 => 'four to five',
			(int) 29 => '100',
			(int) 30 => '5,000',
			(int) 31 => '6,000',
			(int) 32 => '2001]1SCR8',
			(int) 33 => '5,000',
			(int) 34 => '1,666',
			(int) 35 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 36 => '5,000',
			(int) 37 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 38 => '5,000',
			(int) 39 => '3,334',
			(int) 40 => '2 to 4',
			(int) 41 => '5,000',
			(int) 42 => '5,000'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '15 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '6 per cent'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Laxmi Narayan',
			(int) 1 => '24.2.1994 Laxmi',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'B.C. Rawat',
			(int) 4 => 'Kaushnuma Begum v.',
			(int) 5 => 'Nos',
			(int) 6 => 'Nos'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Nai Mata Mandir'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'firstly',
			(int) 1 => 'Secondly',
			(int) 2 => 'Thirdly'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Second Schedule'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one fine morning'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hindu'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '771084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Manphool and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.8. Funerals are not cheap. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.(c) Appellants should be paid Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-10-05',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.S. Chauhan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Chauhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25.6.1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4) started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 1052, being driven by its driver negligently and rashly while plying the bus in wrong side hit Laxmi Narayan's scooter. Due to this accident, the three riders died on the spot. Since two other claim petitions were equally filed by the dependants of the two other riders, who had expired in the accident, the three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 22.1.1997. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined 9 witnesses and submitted as many as 20 documents as documentary evidence. After going through the statements of witnesses and evidence produced by the appellants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. B.C. Rawat, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four contentions before this court: firstly, according to the testimony of appellant No. 1, her husband was 40 years old when he expired. In contravention of the Second Schedule, i.e., the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10, whereas it should have applied the multiplier of 16. Secondly, although ample evidence exits to prove that the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month as he was working as a woodwork contractor, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 2,100 per month. Thirdly, no compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal for the 'loss of affection' suffered by the appellants due to the demise of their father. Lastly, no 'funeral expenses' have been paid to the family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Vide order dated 15.2.2007 this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to send a notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation, as no one had appeared on their behalf despite service of the notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation as far back as 1998. However, even today no one has appeared to assist this Court on their behalf. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of any assistance from the respondent No. 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the award and examined the record which is available before this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to Manphool, AW 4, her husband was 40 years old at the time of his death. Nathulal, AW 9, also states that his father was 40 years old when he expired. The testimonies of these two witnesses have not been demolished in the cross-examination with regard to the age of deceased. According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case the age of the victim is 35 to 40 then a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. But, without giving any cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Both according to Manphool, AW 4 and Babulal, AW 6, the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Babulal states that the deceased was working as a contractor and had employed four to five persons under him. He used to pay Rs. 100 to the employees; he would manufacture furniture and would also do the woodwork in new houses and buildings. According to this witness also, deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. The said testimony, that too of an independent witness, has not been shattered in the cross-examination. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the testimony of the witnesses is not demolished with regard to income of the deceased, the same should be accepted by learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 per month. In order to calculate the loss of dependency Rs. 1,666 (1/3rd of the said amount) should be deducted from the income as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. For small children, who have lost their father in a sudden accident, it is a traumatic experience which the innocent child is unable to realise and unable to express. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill the void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt, the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. Neither theologically, nor philosophically, nor practically does he have any answer for why fate cruelly snatching his/her father at a young age? The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; it is a legal duty to be observed solemnly by learned Claims Tribunal. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to grant the compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Funerals are not cheap. Considering the fact that Hindu last rites are an elaborate affair both on the date of the cremation and during the post-cremation period, it is surprising that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the funeral expenses. The funeral expenses would not only include the actual expenses incurred by the family for arranging the last rites, but would also include the post-funeral ceremonies to be performed by the appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 5,000 should be paid to the appellants under the heading of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 22.1.1997 shall stand modified as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The loss of dependency should be calculated as Rs. 3,334 12 16 = Rs. 6,40,128.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 should be paid Rs. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Appellants should be paid Rs. 5,000 in the category of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,60,128 after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months along with interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 15.6.1994 till the date of realisation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ1104',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '771084'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.S.',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur District',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Narayan',
		(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 5 => 'Babulal',
		(int) 6 => 'Babulal'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 1 => 'a period of',
		(int) 2 => 'one month',
		(int) 3 => '1052',
		(int) 4 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 5 => '40 years old',
		(int) 6 => '5,000 per month',
		(int) 7 => '1998',
		(int) 8 => 'today',
		(int) 9 => '40 years old',
		(int) 10 => '40 years old',
		(int) 11 => '1988',
		(int) 12 => '22.1.1997',
		(int) 13 => '12 16',
		(int) 14 => 'a period of',
		(int) 15 => 'two months',
		(int) 16 => 'a period of',
		(int) 17 => 'one month'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Judicial',
		(int) 9 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 10 => 'the Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Manphool',
		(int) 14 => 'Nathulal',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Manphool',
		(int) 18 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 19 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1,83,000',
		(int) 1 => '25.6.1994',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => 'three',
		(int) 6 => 'two',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'three',
		(int) 9 => '9',
		(int) 10 => 'as many as 20',
		(int) 11 => 'four',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '10',
		(int) 14 => '16',
		(int) 15 => '2,100',
		(int) 16 => '1.Heard',
		(int) 17 => '4',
		(int) 18 => '9',
		(int) 19 => 'two',
		(int) 20 => '35 to 40',
		(int) 21 => '16',
		(int) 22 => 'only 10',
		(int) 23 => '16',
		(int) 24 => '4',
		(int) 25 => '6',
		(int) 26 => '5,000',
		(int) 27 => '6,000',
		(int) 28 => 'four to five',
		(int) 29 => '100',
		(int) 30 => '5,000',
		(int) 31 => '6,000',
		(int) 32 => '2001]1SCR8',
		(int) 33 => '5,000',
		(int) 34 => '1,666',
		(int) 35 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 36 => '5,000',
		(int) 37 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 38 => '5,000',
		(int) 39 => '3,334',
		(int) 40 => '2 to 4',
		(int) 41 => '5,000',
		(int) 42 => '5,000'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '15 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '6 per cent'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Laxmi Narayan',
		(int) 1 => '24.2.1994 Laxmi',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'B.C. Rawat',
		(int) 4 => 'Kaushnuma Begum v.',
		(int) 5 => 'Nos',
		(int) 6 => 'Nos'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Nai Mata Mandir'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'firstly',
		(int) 1 => 'Secondly',
		(int) 2 => 'Thirdly'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Second Schedule'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one fine morning'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hindu'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '771084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Manphool and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.8. Funerals are not cheap. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.(c) Appellants should be paid Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-10-05',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.S. Chauhan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Chauhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25.6.1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4) started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 1052, being driven by its driver negligently and rashly while plying the bus in wrong side hit Laxmi Narayan's scooter. Due to this accident, the three riders died on the spot. Since two other claim petitions were equally filed by the dependants of the two other riders, who had expired in the accident, the three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 22.1.1997. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined 9 witnesses and submitted as many as 20 documents as documentary evidence. After going through the statements of witnesses and evidence produced by the appellants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. B.C. Rawat, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four contentions before this court: firstly, according to the testimony of appellant No. 1, her husband was 40 years old when he expired. In contravention of the Second Schedule, i.e., the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10, whereas it should have applied the multiplier of 16. Secondly, although ample evidence exits to prove that the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month as he was working as a woodwork contractor, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 2,100 per month. Thirdly, no compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal for the 'loss of affection' suffered by the appellants due to the demise of their father. Lastly, no 'funeral expenses' have been paid to the family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Vide order dated 15.2.2007 this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to send a notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation, as no one had appeared on their behalf despite service of the notice to the Delhi Transport Corporation as far back as 1998. However, even today no one has appeared to assist this Court on their behalf. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of any assistance from the respondent No. 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the award and examined the record which is available before this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to Manphool, AW 4, her husband was 40 years old at the time of his death. Nathulal, AW 9, also states that his father was 40 years old when he expired. The testimonies of these two witnesses have not been demolished in the cross-examination with regard to the age of deceased. According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case the age of the victim is 35 to 40 then a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. But, without giving any cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Both according to Manphool, AW 4 and Babulal, AW 6, the deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Babulal states that the deceased was working as a contractor and had employed four to five persons under him. He used to pay Rs. 100 to the employees; he would manufacture furniture and would also do the woodwork in new houses and buildings. According to this witness also, deceased was earning about Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. The said testimony, that too of an independent witness, has not been shattered in the cross-examination. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the testimony of the witnesses is not demolished with regard to income of the deceased, the same should be accepted by learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 per month. In order to calculate the loss of dependency Rs. 1,666 (1/3rd of the said amount) should be deducted from the income as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. For small children, who have lost their father in a sudden accident, it is a traumatic experience which the innocent child is unable to realise and unable to express. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill the void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt, the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. Neither theologically, nor philosophically, nor practically does he have any answer for why fate cruelly snatching his/her father at a young age? The grant of compensation under the category of 'loss of love and affection' is not a ceremony to be performed; it is a legal duty to be observed solemnly by learned Claims Tribunal. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to grant the compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Funerals are not cheap. Considering the fact that Hindu last rites are an elaborate affair both on the date of the cremation and during the post-cremation period, it is surprising that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the funeral expenses. The funeral expenses would not only include the actual expenses incurred by the family for arranging the last rites, but would also include the post-funeral ceremonies to be performed by the appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 5,000 should be paid to the appellants under the heading of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 22.1.1997 shall stand modified as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The loss of dependency should be calculated as Rs. 3,334 12 16 = Rs. 6,40,128.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 should be paid Rs. 5,000 each under the category of 'loss of love and affection'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Appellants should be paid Rs. 5,000 in the category of 'funeral expenses'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,60,128 after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months along with interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 15.6.1994 till the date of realisation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ1104',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '771084'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Motor Vehicles Act

GPE: R.S., Jaipur District, Jaipur, Narayan, Counsel, Babulal, Babulal

DATE: 22.1.1997, a period of, one month, 1052, 22.1.1997, 40 years old, 5,000 per month, 1998, today, 40 years old, 40 years old, 1988, 22.1.1997, 12 16, a period of, two months, a period of, one month

ORG: the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, Judicial, the Delhi Transport Corporation, the Delhi Transport Corporation, Court, Court, Manphool, Nathulal, Tribunal, Court, Manphool, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Tribunal, Court, Claims Tribunal, Court, Tribunal, Court, Tribunal

CARDINAL: 1,83,000, 25.6.1994, 1, 2 to 4, two, three, two, two, three, 9, as many as 20, four, 1, 10, 16, 2,100, 1.Heard, 4, 9, two, 35 to 40, 16, only 10, 16, 4, 6, 5,000, 6,000, four to five, 100, 5,000, 6,000, 2001]1SCR8, 5,000, 1,666, 1/3rd, 5,000, 2 to 4, 5,000, 3,334, 2 to 4, 5,000, 5,000

MONEY: 12 per cent, 15 per cent, 6 per cent

PERSON: Laxmi Narayan, 24.2.1994 Laxmi, Nos, B.C. Rawat, Kaushnuma Begum v., Nos, Nos

FAC: the Nai Mata Mandir

ORDINAL: firstly, Secondly, Thirdly

WORK_OF_ART: the Second Schedule

TIME: one fine morning

NORP: Hindu