- 1 - S.B.C.M.A.No.634 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 634 of 1997 BABU LAL V/S PRAKASH SINGH & ORS Date of Judgment : 16.12.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, Mr. SK SANKHALA, for the appellant Mr. UCS SINGHVI, for the respondent BY THE COURT: This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer dated 30.1.1997, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest, and directing a sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with accrued interest shall be payable in cash, and directing the remaining amount to be put in fixed deposit for three years, to be continued to be renewed, and also placing other restrictions about its being not pledgeable etc. The necessary facts are, that the deceased Hema - 2 - S.B.C.M.A.No.634 of 1997 Ram along with other persons was travelling in the trolley of the tractor No.2648 on 13.4.1992, and while passing near Karwar, the delinquent truck hit the tractor, as a result of which, Hema Ram died. The deceased at the time of accident was 50 years of age, and the claimant is his son. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month, and after making deduction for personal expenditure, to the extent of 1/3rd, assessed the dependency at Rs.16,000/- per year, and employing multiplier of 10, assessed the compensation at Rs.1,60,000/-. Then awarded another sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection. Thus, assessed a total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. Then out of that after adjusting the amount paid on no fault liability basis, the final award has been passed for Rs.1,50,000/- as above. It was argued that the multiplier is low. However, in my view, in view of the recent trend of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, for the person dying at the age of 50 in the accident, the multiplier of 10 is rather much on the excessive side. However, since there is no cross- objection, it need not be interfered, and in any case, it does not require any interference on the upward side. Thus, the contention is negatived. Then it is submitted, that the learned Tribunal - 3 - S.B.C.M.A.No.634 of 1997 was in error in directing the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be put in fixed deposit, with a stipulation for continued renewal after every three years. In my view, the accident occurred in the year 1992, and the award was passed in the year 1997, by now more than 11 years have rolled by even since the passing of the award, and there is no justification for directing this amount of compensation to be put in fixed deposit for indefinite period of time. Obviously therefore, this condition requires to be modified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, the award of compensation is maintained, however the stipulation for keeping the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the fixed deposit for a period of three years, with indefinite renewal is set aside, and it is clarified, that the appellant will be entitled to have the F.D.R. en-cashed, on expiry of the term, for which it is presently made. (N.P.GUPTA ),J. /tarun/