Delhi High Court
Nand Lal And Ors. vs Jan. Mohd. And Ors. on 13 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IVAD(DELHI)218, 2001(58)DRJ101
Author: M.S.A. Siddiqui
Bench: M.S.A. Siddiqui
JUDGMENT B.A. Khan, J.
1. One Chander Bhan, 17, was killed in a road accident on 8.9.1977. His parents filed Claim Suit No. 519/77 and claimed compensation of Rs. one lakh. But MACT assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,75/- and dependency at Rs. 100/-p.m. and applied a multiplier of 15 to award compensation of Rs. 18,000/- and then made certain deductions from it to reduce it to Rs. 16,200/- with 6% p.a. interest.
2. Appellant filed FAO 91/81 for enhancement of compensation and First Appellant Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal regarding income of the deceased and also his dependency. It, however, raised the multiplier from 15 to 25 and also interest rate from 6% to 12% to award compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with 12% interest.
3. Appellants still felt dissatisfied and have filed this appeal in 1993 which has remained pending ever since. Their Counsel Mr. Goyal has submitted written submissions wanting us to follow some latest judgments of the Supreme Court awarding higher compensation. He has placed reliance on Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, 1988 ACJ 848, granting compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the LRs of the deceased labourer, a judgment of this Court reported in All India Lawyers Union (Delhi unit) v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 ACJ 1006, granting Rs. 2 lakhs on the death of seven years old boy, and a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Deep Chand Sood and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors., 1997 ACJ 831, awarding Rs. 5 lakhs to the parents of boy drowned due to the negligence of School Authorities.
4. We have considered these judgments in identical cases, but we could not follow these because compensation awarded was in exercise of writ jurisdiction requiring no specific method to be followed for determination of compensation. Therefore, these could offer no help or support in the present case also.
5. Apart from this we are faced with a concurrent finding of Tribunal and FAC on assessment of income of deceased and his dependency. nothing has been shown or argued to suggest that such findings were vitiated by any glaring mistake or perversity. Given regard to our limited jurisdiction in undertaking any fresh appraisal of the evidence on record in the face of a concurrent finding, we find no scope to disturb the findings and reopen the matter.
This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
6. Appeal dismissed.