// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.297/2004 Smt. Ramrati W/o late Shri Ajmer Singh & Others Versus Atar Singh Son of Shri Ram Phool and Others Date of Order ::: 01.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri N.K. Singhal, Counsel for appellants Shri J.P. Goyal with Ms. Manisha Surana, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of death of Ajmer Singh Son of Pritam Singh, who died in motor- accident took place on 29th October, 1999 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 2nd June, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) No.1, Bayana, in Claim Application No.75/2000, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty-seven thousand only) as compensation in their favour, with interest at the rate of 9% // 2 // per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. 2nd August, 2000, till the date of payment. The learned counsel for the appellants made two fold submissions – one is that the multiplier applied in the present case is towards lower side and another is in respect of wrong assessment of income of the deceased and the assessment of dependency amount. It is contended that even as per the finding of the learned Tribunal the age of the deceased was in between 50 and 55 years and as per the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 the multiplier of 11 was applicable whereas the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 only, therefore, the multiplier of 11 may be applied in the present case. It is further contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month from his business and agriculture whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs.18,000/- only. It is contended that even if there was no documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased then at-least the minimum wage at the relevant time payable to skilled labour i.e. Rs.103/- per day ought to have been assessed as the income of the deceased and consequently the dependency amount // 3 // should have been assessed in the case. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly in the case. The learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned Award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty – (2003) 7 SCC 197 , observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. It is also settled law that the amount of compensation should neither be a meager amount nor it should be a bonanza. However, in the present case, I find that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by // 4 // the learned Tribunal is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about applicability of multiplier is concerned, I find that as per the Second Schedule appended with the Act of 1988 the multiplier of 11 is applicable where the victim is above 50 years of age but not exceeding 55 years. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the age of the deceased was in between 50 and 55 years, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 10 in place of 11. So far as second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, I find that the learned Tribunal has not given any basis for assessing the annual income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-. Even if there was no documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-, then at-least the minimum wage of skilled-labour payable at the relevant time should have been taken to be the income of the deceased, therefore, on this count also the Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased. I am of the view // 5 // that the income of the deceased should be assessed as Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per year, and out of it 1/3rd amount is liable to be deducted for his personal expenses, therefore, the dependency amount is assessed as Rs.24,000/- per annum. I am further of the view that the multiplier of 11 is applicable in the present case in place of 10 applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the total amount of compensation under the head of loss of income comes to Rs.2,64,000/- (24000x11). The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of deprivation of love and affection, therefore, I am of the view that the three appellants i.e. two sons and one mother, will be entitled for Rs.5,000/- each i.e. total Rs.15,000/- under this head also. The appellant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. A sum of Rs.2,000/- will further be paid to the claimants for funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total amount of compensation in the present cases comes to Rs.2,91,000/- (264000+15000+10000+2000). In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award passed by // 6 // the Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- for the death of Ajmer Singh awarded by the Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs.2,91,000/- (Rupees two lac ninety-one thousand only). The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of payment. The enhanced amount of compensation under the head of loss of income shall be deposited in the name of the appellant No.1 Smt. Ramrati Widow of late Shri Ajmer Singh, in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years, however, the appellant No.1 will be at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, on monthly or quarterly basis. The costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//