1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT (Smt. Risal Kanwar and ors. Vs. Harvel Singh and ors.) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.46/1991 S.B. Civil Misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 10.07.1990 passed by M.A.C.T. Jaipur in claim Case No.447/87. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 15th OCTOBER, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur) Mr. SP Poshwal ), for the appellant. Mr. Ram Singh for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 10th July, 1990 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby an amount of RS.2,73,200/- under the award was decreed in favour of the claimants-appellants and against the respondent No.1, 2 and 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award dated 10th July, 1990. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants albeit, advanced multi-fold submissions but finally concentrated only 2 on one argument and canvassed that the deceased Prahlad Singh Tanwar was Government employee at the time of accident and he was posted as Lower Division Clerk in Rajasthan State Electricity Board. While computing the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the superannuation age as 58 years and thus applied multiplier of 22, as the deceased at the time of his death was 36 years old. Learned counsel further submits that in the present times the superannuation age is 60 years. The appeal has been pending for the last 19 years in the Court. Hence, having a sympathetic view, the multiplier of 24 should be applied, instead of the multiplier of 22 and the quantum of compensation be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the date of birth of the deceased Prahlad Singh was 8th February, 1951. Had he been alive and in remained service, he would have retired on 7th February, 2011, after completion of superannuation age of 60 years. In the year 1990, when award was passed, the law of claims was not that 3 much developed. After the year 1990, there has been a sea change in the development of law. Thereafter, there has been amendment also in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 and IInd Scheduled containing the multiplier has been incorporated therein. Prior to the year 1994, the mode of applying the multiplier was distinct. Keeping in view the superannuation age of 58 years, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 22, but since in the present times the superannuation age is 60 years, so while deciding the appeal after 19 years, I deem it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 24, instead of 22, taking the superannuation age as 60 years. Thus, the appellants are found to be entitled to get the following amount:- 1050X12X24=Rs.3,02,400/-. 6. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- to the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- each to his three sons against the mental trauma and deprivation of the deceased's company, they suffered. This amount, in toto, came to be Rs.2,88,200/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.15,000/-, which was already paid to the claimants, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of RS.2,73,200/-, which now stands modified as Rs.3,02,400/- 4 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. Instead of Rs.2,73,200/- an award of RS.3,02,400/- is passed in favour of the claimants- appellants and the impugned award stands modified accordingly. 8. The respondents are directed to pay the difference amount to the appellants within a period of fours weeks from today, failing which the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% thereupon w.e.f 16.11.90, when the appeal was filed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. PCG 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT (Smt. Risal Kanwar and ors. Vs. Harvel Singh and ors.) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.46/1991 DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 15th OCTOBER, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur) Mr. SP Poshwal ), for the appellant. Mr. Ram Singh for the respondents. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. Instead of Rs.2,73,200/- an award of RS.3,02,400/- is passed in favour of the claimants- appellants and the impugned award stands modified accordingly. (See separate judgment). (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. PCG