1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1200 of 2000. Smt. Beeula Karnawat wife of late Sh.Josef Karnawat & Others VERSUS Lacchuram son of Shri Sanwataram & Others Date of Order :::: 12/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Vinay Mathur, Counsel for the claimant-appellants Mr. Suresh Sharma and Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Counsel for the Respondents *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the award of the learned Tribunal. In the instant case, in a motor accident, which occurred way back on 08.09.1993, the husband of the appellant No.1 died. The deceased was a driver and his age at the time of the accident was 40-years. He was employed with the United Commercial Bank at the time of accident. His salary at the time of accident was about Rs.3000/- per month. 2 It has also come on record that the widow – appellant No.1 has received compassionate appointment against the post of her husband, as a Class IV employee. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking only an amount of Rs.500/- per month, as contribution for the purposes of determining the compensation on account of loss of earning. Learned counsel submits that this amount admittedly has been taken on the ground that since the widow is required to attend her duties in the Bank, she would require somebody to look after her house-hold and children and for this purpose an expenses of Rs.500/- has been calculated and the contribution of the deceased to the family has been ignored. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants submitted that the salary of the deceased, who was on the post of driver was more than that of the appellant No.1, who has been appointed as Class IV employee and, therefore, there has been a permanent loss, so far as the earning are concerned, and the contribution, which the family would have received. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has not taken the aforesaid aspect of the matter into consideration, while determining the compensation for loss of earning on account of the death of the deceased husband of the appellant No.1. 3 Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meager sum towards the loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the children of Rs.15000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively. He has also submitted that so far as the mother of the deceased is concerned, the appellant No.4, nothing has been awarded to her on account of the death of the son. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the pay scale of the driver and that of the Class IV employee cannot be equated. Therefore, there is a permanent loss of income on account of the difference of these pay scales. The learned Tribunal has taken a very meager sum of Rs.500/- for the purpose of determining of the loss of income in the instant case. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, a sum of Rs.1000/- ought to have been taken for the purposes of determining the loss of income taking into account the difference of the two pay scales of the driver and the Class IV as well as the fact that the family would require to employ a person to help in the house-hold, since the appellant No.1 would have to attend to her duties as Class-IV employee. 4 However, in the instant case, the age of the deceased has been found to be 40-years. Taking into account the provision of the Second Schedule for the purpose of adopting the multiplier, in the facts and circumstances of the case the age being 40 years, a multiplier of 15 at least requires to be adopted as against 13, which has been adopted by the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the loss of earning to the family is calculated as follows : (1000x12x15) = Rs.1,80,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.78,000/- under this head. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to Rs.1,02,000/- in the above head, which is the diffeence. Similarly, the amount of Rs.5000/- to each of the children also appears to be inadequate. The amount awarded by way of loss of consortium to the wife as Rs.15,000/-, which I am not inclined to interfere. However, the amount of Rs.5000/-, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to each two children on account of loss of love and affection appears to be inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each, looking to the social status and the family background of the appellant. It is correct that the learned Tribunal has not awarded anything to the mother of the deceased. In the facts 5 and circumstances of the case, the appellant No.4 – mother of the deceased is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss of her son. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to get enhanced amount of Rs.1,02,000/- (towards loss of earning) + Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5000/- to each of the children) and Rs.25,000/- to the mother – appellant No.4; in all total as Rs.1,37,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be payable with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 08.08.2000. This miscellaneous appeal stands allowed, as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/