Full Text
Translation output
,? i;'
#29 o/o 16.09 .20II
Present: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
+MAC APP.232I2009
*
The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated
29.0L.2009 of the Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- was awarded as compensation to respondents as the legal heirs of the deceased Satpal Singh who had died in a road accident that took place on 03.08.2006. The sum of
Rs.4,70,000/-was made up of Rs.4,30,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The only grievance of the appellant as set out in the appeal is that the respondents should have claimed compensation under the Workman Compensation Act where there was no provisions for grant of compensation under the head of
'love and affection and 'loss of estate' and also that compensation under Workman Compensation Act was much less than the compensation awarded under Motor
Vehicle Act. There cannot be a dispute that the respondents were within their rights to have filed claim
).<ry'
2011:DHC:14919
.-I
!^ l^ petition under Section L40lI46 of the M,V. Act and were not under a mandatory obligation to have sought compensation under Workman Compensation Act.
The fact that compensation under Workman
Compensation Act was to be on lower side or that there was no provision for grant of compensation under the heads of 'love and affection' and 'loss of estate' are not valid grounds to" deprive the respondents of their legal rights to claim compensation under Section 1401146 of the
M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at just and appropriate compensation in this case. I do not see any illegality in the impugned award. I also do not see any substance in the grievance as set up by the appellant in filing the present appeal inasmuch as the appellant was also granted right of recovery of the compensation amount. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
-e^'-Q-\'
M.L. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER L6,ZOLL awanish
'*+^ il4en
2011:DHC:14919
#29 o/o 16.09 .20II
Present: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
+MAC APP.232I2009
*
The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated
29.0L.2009 of the Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- was awarded as compensation to respondents as the legal heirs of the deceased Satpal Singh who had died in a road accident that took place on 03.08.2006. The sum of
Rs.4,70,000/-was made up of Rs.4,30,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The only grievance of the appellant as set out in the appeal is that the respondents should have claimed compensation under the Workman Compensation Act where there was no provisions for grant of compensation under the head of
'love and affection and 'loss of estate' and also that compensation under Workman Compensation Act was much less than the compensation awarded under Motor
Vehicle Act. There cannot be a dispute that the respondents were within their rights to have filed claim
).<ry'
2011:DHC:14919
.-I
!^ l^ petition under Section L40lI46 of the M,V. Act and were not under a mandatory obligation to have sought compensation under Workman Compensation Act.
The fact that compensation under Workman
Compensation Act was to be on lower side or that there was no provision for grant of compensation under the heads of 'love and affection' and 'loss of estate' are not valid grounds to" deprive the respondents of their legal rights to claim compensation under Section 1401146 of the
M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at just and appropriate compensation in this case. I do not see any illegality in the impugned award. I also do not see any substance in the grievance as set up by the appellant in filing the present appeal inasmuch as the appellant was also granted right of recovery of the compensation amount. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
-e^'-Q-\'
M.L. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER L6,ZOLL awanish
'*+^ il4en
2011:DHC:14919
JUDGMENT