Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 87 of 2007
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Shanti & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 18506 of 2007.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 12 days.
I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.
The cause shown in the affidavit for filing the appeal beyond time is bona-fide.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time.
The Delay Condonation Application No. 18506 of 2007 is allowed.
Order on Appeal The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/A.D.J., Court No. 7, Azamgarh, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,20,500/- along-with 6% interest as compensation to the claimant-respondent.
Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant is the sister of deceased Sarju and she cannot be said to be dependent upon deceased as such, the Tribunal has acted illegally in holding the claimant-respondent no. 1 to be entitled for compensation. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the deceased was bachelor and therefore, Tribunal ought to have deducted half towards personal expenses of the deceased.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the claimant-respondent no. 1 cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal in deciding the issue no. 5 has recorded a finding that the claimant is the divorced sister and was solely dependent upon the deceased. The fact that the claimant was divorced by her husband is not disputed and the appellant has not led any evidence to establish that the fact of the divorce pleaded by the claimant is wrong.
In this view of the fact, in the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in holding that the claimant is dependent upon the deceased and is entitled for compensation.
Thus, the aforesaid contention raised by the claimant is misconceived and is not sustainable.
In the facts of the present case that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the deceased was bachelor and therefore, the Tribunal has ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, but the fact remains that the Court is duty bound to award just and fair compensation.
It is settled in law that the claimant is entitled for future prospect, even in case where the deceased was self employed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospect and, if the Tribunal had awarded future prospect, the amount of compensation would be same as awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, the contention of the counsel for the appellant in respect of quantification of compensation is rejected.
For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the appellant, if not remitted, shall be remitted to the Tribunal within four weeks.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Ishan