1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.701/1994 BHURI & OTHERS V/S R.S.R.T.C. & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MARCH 7, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri S.K. Jain, for appellants/claimants. Shri Anirudh Singh for Shri Virendra Agarwal, for respondents. BY THE COURT (Oral): This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation against the order dated March 24, 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.76,050/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded by the learned Tribunal. On Feb. 25, 1990 at 6.00 in the evening, deceased Ghasi met with an accident at Bundi-Deoli National High-way near village 'Bara Naya Gaon' and was dashed by the offending bus RJ 14/1407 driven by the respondent Majid Mohammad @ Abdul Majid and causing his death on the spot. 2 The appellants have challenged the award on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded to them. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that deceased was young man of 25 years and was keeping cattle and was earning Rs.2000/- per month from grazing the cattle. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in reaching at the conclusion that the deceased was liable for 25% contributory negligence as the deceased was on foot and the offending vehicle was in motion when the accident took place the deceased was getting down from the vehicle. Learned counsel further argued that the income assessed is on lower side while the deceased used to earn Rs.2000/- per month out of the occupation of grazing the cattle. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier 12 instead of 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation after holding the inquiry and the evidence 3 adduced by the parties. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier adopted by he Tribunal is on lower side as the age of the deceased was between 25 to 30 and the multiplier of 18 should have been applied as per the guidelines provided in Second Schedule of the M.V. Act. The deceased was getting down from the truck when he met with the accident and as such no contributory negligence can be attributed to him. Therefore, the deductions of 25% compensation on account of contributory negligence deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income has been assessed on lower side which is not much consequence as no documentary evidence has been placed before the Tribunal the annual income of the deceased and as such the income assessed by the Tribunal is found to be reasonable. The learned Tribunal has also not awarded additional Rs.15000/- by way of loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and only Rs.10000/- has been awarded and as such the amount of consortium is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Likewise, a sum of Rs.2000/- is required to be given by way of 4 funeral expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the total compensation comes out to Rs. 600 x 12 x 18 + 15000 + 5000 + 2000 = 1,51,600/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation in the awarded as Rs.76,050/- is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.1,51,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal i.e. 4.7.97 and the amount under the award shall be payable within three months from the date of this order and failure to do so, the amount shall entail interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 4.7.1994 The appeal stands disposed of. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/