{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.757/1999 Smt.Jyani Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sariff & Ors. Date of order : 19.10.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Mehta, Mr. U.C.S.Singhvi, Mr.Sanjay Paliwal for Mr. Anil Bachhawat, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: This is a misc. appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) against an award dt. 29.6.1999 passed by MACT, Ratangarh, Distt.Churu in Claim Case No.66/1993. 2. By impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Mahaveer Singh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded to them is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether { 2 } any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence is made out and if so, to what extent ? 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants’ favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner / driver, or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to burden my judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 4. It is a death case. On 1.6.1993, Mahaveer Singh, aged around 24 years, a teacher in Govt.School met with a vehicular accident and died. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of a claim petition by his legal representatives claiming compensation for his death. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,85,000/- towards full payment of compensation for his death along with interest payable at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of one amendment application made by claimants before Tribunal. It is this award which is sought to be challenged by the claimants inter-alia on the ground that it is on a lower side and therefore, it should be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued three points. In the first place, he contended that since deceased { 3 } Mahaveer Singh was a teacher and had a long period to serve in future in his service carrier, the Tribunal should have awarded future loss of income to the claimants on the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (2001) ACJ 1298. In the second place, he contended that Tribunal erred in awarding interest on the awarded sum from the date of one amendment application i.e. from 20.11.1995. According to him it should have been from the date of original claim petition and lastly he contended that Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.18,000/- towards consortium. 6. In reply learned counsel for the respondents (Insurance Company) supported the impugned award and contended that it should be upheld. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case I am inclined to allow the appeal in part as indicated infra. 8. Coming first to the issue relating to award of compensation towards loss of future income, the law on this point is settled by the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma. In the facts of this case, it is applicable and hence benefit of the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case should be given to claimants. It has come in evidence that deceased Mahaveer Singh was a teacher and he was below 50 years of age. He being a salaried man would have earned by way of salary in future had he been alive. In this view of the matter, claimants were entitled to claim the compensation for the loss of future income on the strength of law laid down in Sarla Verma case supra. Taking into account the monthly salary (Rs.2100/- per month), the age of deceased and all other material facts, I consider it just and proper to { 4 } award under this head in lumpsum a total sum of Rs.50,000/- though learned counsel for the appellant claimed more. In my view, an award of Rs.50,000/- under this head appears to meet the ends of justice. 9. Coming now to the issue relating to award of compensation towards consortium such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc., I do not consider it proper to enhance any more than what has been awarded because it being essentially a matter of discretion and looking to over all facts of this case, the award of compensation of Rs.18,000/- under these head cannot be said to be on lower side. In this view of the matter, no case on facts is made out to enhance the compensation than what is awarded. It is accordingly upheld. 10. So far as award of interest is concerned, the same being a matter of discretion, I am not inclined to interfere in such finding of Tribunal. It is apart from the fact that in connected appeals arising out of same impugned award in the case of other claimants, this Court dismissed those appeals and upheld the award impugned in this case in so far as other similar issues are concerned. It is for all these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this submissiion. It is accordingly rejected. 11. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant { 5 } factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. I have gone through these authorities. In my opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. It is applied by me in this case to the extent applicable and then arrived at the fault of award. 13. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 8. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the same date on which the Tribunal has awarded the interest on the awarded sum. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.1500/-, if certified. (A.M.SAPRE ),J. /tarun/