{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.882/1999 Smt.Shobha Devi & Ors. Vs. Mana Ram & Ors. Date of order : 3.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. Mr. Anil Bachhawat, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. This is a misc. appeal filed by claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) against an award dt. 24.7.1999 passed by MACT, Barmer in Claim Case No.46/98. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants for the death of one Kewal Chand, who died in vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded to them is in lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by Tribunal on fact/evidence is made out and if so to what extent? { 2 } 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar for the appellants and Mr.Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 5.7.1997, Kewal Chand, aged around 28 years died in vehicular accident. He was a businessman engaged in what is called “Dying”. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act by dependents claiming compensation for his death. It was contested by non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which included Rs.2,88,000/- towards dependency and Rs.12,000/- towards consortium. It is this award, which is impugned in this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 5. Having heard 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. 6. Though learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing deceased's monthly/yearly income but in my view, on perusal of evidence, I do not find any merit in this submission. The Tribunal did take into consideration the income tax returns filed by claimants relating to deceased's case and then worked out that deceased's income from his business was Rs.24,000/-. This figure is based on income tax returns and { 3 } hence it cannot be said that it is arbitrary or illegal or on lower side. In business one does not earn a fixed amount but it is always varying. It is thus not possible to hold that deceased yearly income was more than Rs.24,000/-. 7. Now the only area where I consider it proper to interfere is award of consortium money. In my view, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- whereas it should be Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum towards loss of estate, love and affection, funeral expenses etc. It is for the reason that deceased was young and married person. So far as future prospects are concerned, this being a case of business, no evidence is adduced to show any future profit. Had it been a case of salaried man, then the law laid down in Sarla Verma would have applied. But such is not the case. The case law relied on by learned counsel for the appellant (2010 ACJ 758) does not decide any law point but it turned on facts of that case. However, still taking into consideration, all facts and circumstances of the case, a total sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future loss in business is also awarded. In all thus, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.2,88,000/-+Rs.25,000/-+Rs.15,000/- =Rs.3,28,000/-. 8. 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 factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 9. 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 7. The enhanced awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till { 4 } realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.1500/-, if certified. (A.M.SAPRE ),J. /tarun/