FAO No. 5382 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5382 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.1.2010 Bansi Lal & others .......... Appellants Versus Mahavir & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Ghangas, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 17.1.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal”) vide which claim petition filed by the appellants, was accepted and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,42,000/- ( Rupees four lac and forty two thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum was awarded. The claimants claimed compensation, on account of death of wife of claimant No.1, and mother of the minor children claimants No.2 & 3. The claim petition was filed with the pleadings, that deceased Saroj Bala and her minor daughter Anisha alias Ankita while going from village Kheri Sheru to Kaithal on motor cycle No. HR-0F/7093, which was being driven by the appellant husband, met with an accident with a bus bearing No. HR- FAO No. 5382 of 2008 2 39-A/8462, driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of accident Smt. Saroj Bala received serious and grievous injuries on her head and other parts of the body, and expired on the spot. It was claimed by the claimants, that the deceased was doing tailoring business at home, and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month, and the claimants were dependent on her. The claim petition was contested. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the accident dated 10.9.2006 at about 11.00 A.M. in the area of village, Peoda near Titram Mor resulting into death of Smt. Saroj Bala took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No. HR-39-A/8462 as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law?OPR 4. Whether the claimant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present claim petition?OPR 5. Whether the claim petition is a result of collusion between the claimant and local police just to grab a false claim from the respondent?OPR 6. Relief” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the FAO No. 5382 of 2008 3 conclusion, that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 i.e. driver of vehicle No.HR-39-A/8462. Keeping in view the fact, that no evidence regarding running of tailoring business was led, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) per month, and dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand only) per month. Keeping in view the age, multiplier of 18 was applied. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- ( Rupees four lac and forty two thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants. This appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condoning the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given for condonation of delay reads as under:- “2. That the delay in filing the appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the appellants are poor persons and arranged money from their relatives. After receiving the same the appellants contacted the undersigned counsel in the month of June but due to summer vacations of the court, the undersigned counsel was out of station and the appellants again contacted on dated 04.7.2008 for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, delay occurred in filing the appeal.” The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends, that the compensation awarded, is on the lower side, as there was no justification, for the learned Tribunal not to accept the plea of the claimants, FAO No. 5382 of 2008 4 that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees then thousand only) per month from the tailoring business. Furthermore, the interest awarded is also on the lower side. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the other benefits like consortium and transportation charges etc. have not been awarded. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. In absence of proof of deceased running a tailoring business, she could at best be taken as a house wife. The learned Tribunal has been quite liberal in assessing the income as Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) per month, out of which dependency has been assessed at Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand only) per month. It cannot be said that the amount awarded is less and that the interest @ 7.5% per annum is less, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. The compensation awarded being adequate and just does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the reading of the ground for condonation of delay would show that, no sufficient cause has been shown ,as no details are forthcoming as to what amount was required to file appeal, and how time of 116 days was spent to get this money, especially when a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- ( Rupees four lac and forty two thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum was awarded in favour of the appellants by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed on merit, as well as on the ground of limitation. 13.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE