1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1762/2005 arising out of Claim No.1826/01 SMT. KAJODI & OTHERS V/s SATYA NARAIN & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 05, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for appellants. Shri Sandeep Jain, for respondents. Shri D.S. Rathore, for United India Insurance Copany Limited. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal has come up for admission. Both the parties agreed to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation against the award dated March 19, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.2,68,700/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. On March 23, 2000 around 7.30 P.M., deceased and injured were going in tractor 2 RJ-08 R 3332. The tractor was dashed by truck RJ-06 G 0856. The offending truck was being driven by respondent Satyanarain. In the accident Parma Ram, Mahendra, Jagdish, Mst. Bhoori, Mst. Dholi, Mst. Gulab and Mst. Gheesi died and Sanjay @ Santu, Ramratan, Chhotu Lal, Mst. Bhoori, Ramesh, Bajrang Lal, Mst. Kajodi, Raju Lal, Ramkaran, Bhanwar Lal S/o Chhotu Keer and Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramdeo Raigor received serious and simple injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Jagdish was the only bread earner of the family and he used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by way of agricultural operations as well as by way of daily wages as a labourer and the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing income of Rs.1800/- per month of deceased. He submits that deceased Jagdish has left behind four children and widow Kajodi and as such the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 6. Per contra, Shri D.S. Rathore learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited and Shri Sandeep Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground 3 that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter and after recording evidence of both the sides during enquiry, rightly arrived at the conclusion and calls for no interference. 7. In view of the rival contentions and on perusal of the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that that deceased Jagdish was the sole bread earner of the family and he was engaged with agricultural operations and was also as daily wages earner. Though, no documentary basis of about his monthly income of Rs.4,000/- has been produced but looking to the dependency of the deceased, the income appears to have been assessed on lower side. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be assessed as Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3 on account of expenses of the deceased. The amount deserves to be computed by adopting multiplier of 15. Thus Rs.1600/- x 12 x 15 = 2,88,000/- plus Rs.52,700/- (on account of other heads) comes to Rs.3,40,700/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs.3,40,700/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 31.5.2005. 4 8. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.3,40,700/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within a period of three months from this order shall entail interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 31.5.2005. 9. The award stands modified and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/