// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4987/2008 Smt. Geeta Sharma Widow of Late Shri Surendra Kumar and Others Versus Shri Ram Shivram S/o Shri Khumana Ram and Others Date of Order ::: 08.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vinay Mathur, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Surendra Kumar, who died in a motor-accident occurred on 14th September, 2005, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Claim Case No.357/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,12,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 12th November, 2005, in their favour. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are twofold – first is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 13 after determining the age // 2 // of deceased as 46 years; whereas, as per the statement of AW-1 Geeta Devi, the deceased was only 39 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied in this case; the second submission is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased properly. According to him, as per the salary-certificate the net monthly income of the deceased was shown as Rs.4,312/- and it was after deduction of certain amount; whereas, for the purpose of award of compensation under the head of loss of income, the gross income should have been taken into consideration. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. So far as the first submission regarding proper multiplier is concerned, I find that AW-1 Geeta Devi, in her statement, stated that the deceased was 39 years of age. In the postmortem- report (Exhibit-11) the age of deceased was mentioned as 48 years. Exhibit-1 is the salary- certificate in which the date of birth was mentioned as 7th July, 1960, and the accident took place on 14th September, 2005, therefore, as per the date of birth mentioned in the salary- certificate (Exhibit-1), which is admitted // 3 // document of the appellants, the deceased was above 45 years on the date of death and as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 13 is applicable in the case where age of victim is above 45 years but not exceeding 50 years. In these circumstances, I find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in applying the multiplier of 13. So far as second submission is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the salary- certificate of the deceased (Exhibit-1) wherein the net income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.4,312/-. The Tribunal took into consideration the future prospects of the deceased also and increased the monthly income by 50% and assessed his monthly income as Rs.6,468/- i.e. Rs.77,660/- per annum and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses, determined the dependency amount as Rs.51,744/- per annum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2008) 2 SCC 774 has held that claimant was entitled to be compensated on the basis of net salary and the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deducting the allowance. So far as the present case is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has already increased the monthly income of the deceased by 50% and assessed his monthly income // 4 // as Rs.6,468/- in place of 4,312/-, therefore, I do not find any illegality in this regard also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another – (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Looking to the age of the deceased, i.e. above 45 years, and his monthly income i.e. Rs.4,312/-, the total amount of Rs.7,12,700/- awarded in the present case with interest, cannot be said to be an inadequate amount of compensation. In my view the above amount of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//