IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 129 of 1996 SMT.KAMLESH V/S M/S GANPATI STRUCTURES Mr. RAVI BHANSALI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RK MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 8.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimants, against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dt. 18.11.1995, decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs.1,99,000/-, by way of compensation for death of deceased Rajednra Jain, who died in the road accident, on 21.8.1988. Since this appeal is for enhancement of compensation, filed on behalf of claimants, and there is no cross appeal, or cross objection on behalf of owner, or insurer, therefore, I need not detain myself on other factual aspects, and negligence etc. and need to discuss only the facts, which are necessary for determining the amount of compensation, as the amount awarded is claimed to be grossly inadequate. The learned Tribunal below has found the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3504/- per month, and has assessed the dependency at Rs. 2000/- per month, and by employing multiplier of 6, the assessment of compensation has been made. The learned Tribunal has also found the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, to be 43 years. A look at the evidence on record shows, that the claimant Kamlesh has deposed, that her deceased husband was working as Assistant Manager in RIICO, and was getting Rs. 4500/- per month as salary. Then, she has deposed about longevity of life, and has deposed that he had very bright chances of promotion. On this aspect there is no cross examination, on the side of any of the defendants. Then, P.W.2 Sunil Ajmera, a Senior Accountant, in the RIICO has appeared. He has produced the salary record of the deceased, and has proved the certificate Ex.-1, showing that in August 1988, the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3504/- per month, apart from bonus/incentive, and thus he was getting Rs. 4000/- per month. He has deposed, that in 1971 the deceased was appointed as Sr. Assistant, and had earned four promotions, being Accountant, Sr. Accountant, and Assistant Manager, and there were all probabilities of his rising to the level of Dy. General Manager. This is the whole oral evidence about the income. The other evidence is regarding negligence, and insurance cover etc., which need 2 not detain me. On the side of the defence, two witnesses have been examined, but they have not deposed anything about income aspect of the deceased, or any such fact, which may have bearing on the calculation of compensation. Then, a look at Ex.-1, Salary Certificate shows, that monthly pay, and the actual pay paid for the month of August, from 1st August till the date of death, was shown to be @ Rs. 3504/- per month. In my view, in view of the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal, about the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 3504/-, cannot be said to be suffering from any error. However, so far as the question of dependency is concerned, the claimants are the widow, and the two minor children, and the deceased had chances of promotion also, as within the span of 17 years he had earned four promotions, and had another more than one and a half decade of service. In such circumstances, taking an over all view of the matter, in my view, the dependency of the family should be assessed at Rs. 2500/- per month, instead of Rs. 2000/-, rather the figure of Rs. 2500/- per month should be taken as a multiplicand, to be applied to the appropriate multiplier. Then, coming to the multiplier, learned counsel for the parties cited four judgments, being those in U.P. State Road Transport Corp.. Vs. Krishna Bala. reported in 3 (2006) 6 SCC-249, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Sripriya reported in 2007 ACJ- 1076, Kanhaiyalal Kataria Vs. Mukul Chaturvedi, reported in 2007 ACJ-1972, and Supe Dei Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2002(3) T.A.C.-378. Having gone through the evidence, and these judgments, in my view, in view of the latest decisions, based on earlier case law and reasonings, and trend, appropriate multiplier to be applied should be 12 instead of 6. Accordingly, if the compensation on account of loss of dependency is calculated then it comes to Rs. 2500 x 12 x 12= 3,60,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, and the award of compensation, assessed by the learned Tribunal, at Rs. 1,44,000/-, is enhanced to Rs. 3,60,000/-. In my view, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal, looking to the present trend of economy, is excessive, and therefore, it is directed, that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition, till actual payment. The rest of the award is maintained. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/ 4