1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 203 of 1995 SMT. SAVITA & ORS. V/S AYUB BHAI & ORS. Mr. DILIP KAWADIA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. DR LUNKAR, for the respondent Date of Order : 21.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, vide award dt. 4.2.1995. The facts of the case are, that on 1.5.89, the deceased Dhuleshwar was hit by the negligently driven truck no. GRN 5205. According to the claimants the deceased was getting Rs. 1200/- per month as salary, out of which after deducting personal expenditure, he was contributing Rs. 800/- per month for the family. In the claim petition, the deceased was claimed to be 24 years of age, and was claimed to be working as a vehicle driver. Since the appeal is for enhancement of the compensation, I need not go into the question of negligence etc. 2 The learned trial court while deciding the question of quantum, covered by issue no.2, considered the statement of widow Savita, A.W.1 who has deposed the deceased to be receiving salary of Rs. 1200/- per month, and has proved the driving license Ex.-1. She has also deposed the age of the deceased at the time of accident to be 24 years. Then, it was considered that from cross- examination it appears that he was giving Rs. 400-500 per month for expenditure to the family. Then, the evidence of A.W.2, the father of the deceased has been considered, who has gone far beyond the pleadings of the claim, by deposing the deceased to be earning Rs. 2000/- per month, and to be contributing Rs. 1000/- for the family, as personal expenditure of the deceased was deposed by him to be Rs. 1000/-. The learned trial court thus found, that the deceased was working as a vehicle driver, though original driving license has not been produced, and the photostat copy of the driving license is not clear. However, apart from the fact that the father and the widow are not aware as to in which city, and with whom he was employed. Thus, the income of the deceased was not believing to be Rs. 1200/-, but then the evidence of the widow about the deceased contributing Rs. 400-500 per month was believed, and taking the net contribution to the family to be Rs. 400/- per month, applying multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 81,600/-. Then, after adding other awardable amounts the award has been passed. 3 Arguing the appeal it was contended, that from the statement of A.W.1 Smt. Savita and A.W.2 Jagdish Chandra it is clear, that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month, as he was a heavy vehicle driver, and was a young energetic man, and had all prospects of substantial rise in his income in the future, and thus the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the statement of A.W.1 and A.W.2 very closely. Suffice it to say, that so far the statement of A.W.2 Jagdish Chandra is concerned, he has gone to the extent of deposing far beyond what is even pleaded in the claim petition itself: Apart from the fact, that there is no material to lend assurance to his word of mouth. As such, his statement cannot be taken on the face value. Moreover in view of the statement of A.W.1 the widow Savita. So far the statement of A.W. 1 Savita is concerned, she has clearly deposed that as and when deceased was coming to home he was giving Rs. 400-500, and that he was coming to home within month-15 days. In my view, in such circumstances, it would appropriate to accept, that the financial contribution of 4 the deceased to the family was Rs. 500/-, instead of Rs. 400/- per month. So far the multiplier is concerned, looking to the present trend of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the multiplier cannot be said to be requiring any interference in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, and the award of the learned trial court is modified in the manner, that instead of Rs. 81600/-, as calculated in para- 16, the appellant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/-. The other amounts awarded, and other conditions of the award shall, however, remain as such. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/