1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 395 of 1997 R S R T C V/S KAMLA & ORS Mr. VINIT PANDYA for Mr. VK MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SABIR KHAN for Mr. PRADEEP SHAH & Mr. DHIRENDRA KUMAR PANDEY for Mr. BS BHATI, for the respondent Date of Order : 4.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle, being Corporation, challenging the award of the M.A.C.T., Sirohi dt. 24.2.1997, decreeing the claim for a total sum of Rs. 2,33,710/-. The facts of the case as appearing from the claim petition are, that the deceased Durga Shanker aged 48 years was working as Gram Sewak. On 28.10.1993 he suffered an accident near village Kodarala, on national high way at 10.30 in the morning. He was going on moped, and the delinquent bus came on the wrong side, and hit him, as a result of which he died. The claimants are 9 children 2 including 6 minor children, and one widow. The deceased was alleged to be receiving a salary of Rs. 1921/- per month at the time of death. The claim was contested interalia on the ground, that the deceased had lost balance of his moped, rather hit against the stationary bus towards the conductor side. Thus, he himself was negligent in causing accident. It was also pleaded, that the deceased was not having any valid driving license to drive the moped, nor did he know driving. The learned Tribunal decided issue no. 1 being about negligence, in favour of the claimants, after appreciating the evidence produced on the side of the claimants, so also the statement of the driver of the bus. It was considered, that the bus had gone on the wrong side, and if it had been on the correct side, accident would not have occurred. It was also found, that at the time of accident the road was not having any traffic, and the bus was moving at the speed of 60 Kms., though subsequently the driver deposed to be driving the bus at 40-45 Kms. Then, deciding issue no.2, about quantum, the learned Tribunal considered, that from the certificate Ex. 16 it is clear, that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 1921/- per month, and was born on 9.9.1945. Thus, his age was 48 years, and the annual income was Rs. 23052/-. The learned Tribunal found that the deceased was having a large family of 10 dependents, and therefore, deduction for personal 3 expenditure was made only to the extent of 1/8th, and thus annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 20171/-, and applying multiplier of 10, the compensation of Rs. 2,01,710/- was assessed. Then, the claimants had also claimed compensation for the moped, which was totally destroyed. The learned Tribunal considered Ex. 10, the mechanical report of the moped, which showed that the moped had suffered a total loss. The moped was purchased for Rs. 13313/-, and a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded on this count. Then, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- have been awarded for loss of consortium, and Rs. 5,000/- have been awarded for performance of last rites. Thus a total sum of Rs. 2,33,710/- has been awarded. Arguing the appeal it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the deduction of 1/8th made by the learned Tribunal, for personal expenditure, is grossly inadequate, and at least 1/3rd deduction should have been made. The next submission made is, that the award of Rs. 12,000/- for the damages for moped is excessive, as the total purchase price of moped was Rs. 13313/-. The multiplier applied was, however, not disputed. I have considered the submissions, and find, that the moped was purchased in the year 1993 itself, and the accident occurred on 28.10.1993. Thus, for all intent and purpose, the moped was brand new, and when it has been 4 totally lost, as a result of accident, award of Rs. 12,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. So far deduction on account of personal expenditure is concerned, true it is, that normally 1/3rd or at times 1/4th amount is deducted for personal expenditure, and in some 1/6th of amount has also been deducted. The learned Tribunal, as such, could have made deduction of 1/6th only, however, looking to the size of the family, which was dependent on the deceased, and the fact, that even if the deduction was to be made to the extent of 1/6th, the total difference that it would make would be even less than Rs. 10,000/-. It is established law, that interference in appeal, in the quantum of compensation, is not to be made to correct errors with mathematical precision, and interference is not to be made, until and unless it is found, that the same award is shockingly low, or shockingly high. In that view of the matter, may be that the Learned Tribunal should have made deduction to the extent of 1/6th only, but looking to the over all consequence thereof, I am not inclined to interfere with the extent of deduction either. The net result is that the appeal has no force, and the same is dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/