1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1257/2000 (Smt. Shanti @ Sanni Versus Ramavtar & Others) Date of Order :: 1st February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. K.N. Tiwari, counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Tripurari Sharma counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 24th October, 1998 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has decreed an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- in favour of claimants appellants and against the non claimants-respondents. Dissatisfied with this amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Brief facts in a nut shell are thus: “On 17.9.1997 at 6.00 PM deceased Kailash along-with his relative was going from village Bilwadi to Med on motor cycle. No sooner did he cross Gochada turn, one Jeep bearing registration No. RST 892 being driven rashly and negligently suddenly emerged and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which Kailash died on the spot.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant 2 canvassed that the learned Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 15000/- on notional basis, but applied the multiplier of 14 only, whereas the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel has further canvassed that having applied the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation should be re-determined and the impugned award be modified. 5. E. contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the learned Tribunal had already passed a just award of Rs. 1,98,000/- in favour of the appellant. Albeit, in the year 1987, the annual income of a labour, from no stretch of imagination could have been Rs. 15,000/- per annum, but the learned Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 15,000/- on notional basis when the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not in force. The second schedule of the Act of 1988 came into force on 14th November, 1994 after an amendment being made therein. If the income of the appellant is taken to be as per minimum wages prevalent on the fateful day, the income get reduced substantially and if the 3 multiplier is raised as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in umpteen cases prior to an amendment in the Act, then the amount of compensation would come to be abysmally low than the amount of award passed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and that shall be the just award in the instant case. 6. Having reflected over the submissions and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is found that the learned Tribunal albeit applied the second schedule of the Act of 1988 for the purpose of determining the income of the deceased, but declined to apply the multiplier as suggested in the schedule. Since the occurrence took place in the year 1987 and the second schedule was not in force, the learned Tribunal ought not to have determined income at Rs. 15,000/- on notional basis. If the income of the appellant is taken on the notional basis as considered by learned Tribunal and the multiplier, as suggested in the Act, is applied, the amount of compensation goes abysmally high. If the income of the deceased is reckoned as per the minimum wages prevalent at the particular point of time, the amount of award again shall go abysmally low. Hence, to maintain the balance, I am of the 4 opinion that this Court should not make any intervention in the impugned award as it may cause prejudice to either of the parties. The learned Tribunal having considered all the aspects has passed the award of Rs. 1,98,000/-, which is found to be absolutely just and apt. I am of the view that the impugned award does not warrant any intervention for the aforesaid reasons and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal being bereft of merits stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-