1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4812/2008 Phoole Singh & Ors. V/s Chatar Lal & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 1st December, 2008 Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri J.P. Gupta, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of deceased Jai Ram who died in motor accident which took place on 25.8.2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, in Motor Accident Claims Case No.968/2005 whereby the learned learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- in their favour with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 8.9.2000. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned 2 Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the compensation under the heads of loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and for deprivation of love & affection to the children and parents. Therefore, the compensation under the said heads, may also be awarded and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, particularly; the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2250/- per month and determined his age in between 20 to 25 years and applied the multiplier of 17 for the purpose of assessing the compensation under the heads of loss of income. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the income and age of the deceased and the multiplier applied in the present case by the Tribunal. His only contention is about the non-awarding the compensation under the heads of loss of consortium and deprivation of love & affection. The learned Tribunal while assessing the total amount of compensation 3 under the head of loss of income, has awarded Rs.3,06,000/-, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for deprivation of love & affection and loss of consortium also. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,13,000/-. It is relevant to mention that so far as the Second Schedule appended with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, it does not find any head for awarding compensation for deprivation of love & affection to children and parents. However, there is a practice for awarding such compensation under these heads but at the same time, it is also a practice to keep in mind that the Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The compensation should neither be a meager amount nor it should be a bonanza. The total compensation awarded u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should appear to be just, fair and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty – (2003) 7 SCC 197, has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered 4 in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by it, is just and reasonable compensation, then the award cannot be allowed to be challenged only on the ground that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under various heads separately. In fact, there is no specific head prescribed u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,000/- for deprivation of love & affection and consortium also. The total amount has been awarded in the present case is Rs.3,13,000/- which cannot be said to a meager amount looking to the income and age of the deceased which has not been challenged in the present case. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case and I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (N.K. Jain), J.