// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.158/2004 Kanhaiya Lal S/o Prabhu and Others Versus Mohan Lal Son of Chhote Lal and Another Date of Order ::: 20.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rakesh Bhargava, Counsel for appellants Smt. Manju Jain, Counsel for respondent No.2 RSRTC Shri S.K. Singodiya, Advocate, for Shri U.C. Baberwal, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. The respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Ramswaroop, the unmarried son of claimant No.1 Kanhaiya Lal, who died in a motor-accident, which took place on 2nd August, 1990, and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 15th October, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, in Claim Case No.181/1998, whereby the // 2 // learned Tribunal awarded a total lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in their favour, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 30th April, 1998 till the date of payment. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was working as 'mistri' (mason) and was 20 years of age and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal neither assessed his income nor applied proper multiplier in the present case and only on the basis of Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarded a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which, according to him, is a meager amount and the same is liable to be enhanced. In support of his contention, he relied upon United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Saroj Devi – 2006 ACJ 1716 (Rajasthan). The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the accident in the present case took place on 2nd August, 1990, whereas the claim application was filed after a delay of 8 years; the deceased was 20 years of age; his monthly income was pleaded as Rs.3,000/- but no documentary evidence on the record were produced in support thereof. It is further // 3 // contended that this accident relates to the year 1990 and in the relevant year the minimum daily wage for unskilled labour was Rs.43/- which comes to Rs.1290/- per month and Rs.15,480/- per annum. The claimant in the present case was father, who was 52 years of age and in case the multiplier, according to his age, is applied then it comes to 11 and the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,70,280/-. As per settled proposition of law 1/3rd amount is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased and, after deduction of the same, the net amount of dependency comes to Rs.1,13,520/-, whereas in the present case the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,50,000/- which cannot be said to be a meager amount. It is further contended that the Tribunal has also awarded interest from the date of claim application at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award. The learned Tribunal, while discussing the Issue No.2, relating to quantum of // 4 // compensation, has considered the statement of AW-1 Kanhaiya Lal, the father of the deceased, who stated that the deceased Ramswaroop was 20 years of age and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. AW-2 Vijay Singh and AW-3 Durga Prasad have also stated the same thing. The learned Tribunal, while examining the applicant's statement, has observed that no detail has been given in the statement as to where and with whom the deceased was working as 'mistri'. No detail of his income and expenses has been furnished in the case. No person, with whom the deceased alleged to have been working as 'mistri', has been examined, to corroborate the statement of AW-1 Kanhaiya Lal, the father of the deceased, who was interested in getting more amount of compensation being the claimant in the case. The learned Tribunal observed that the deceased was of the tender age and in fact he was a non-earning member. However, the Tribunal awarded total lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the claimants. So far as the United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Saroj Devi's case (supra), referred by the learned counsel for the appellants, is concerned, I find that the Tribunal in the said case, where the age of the // 5 // deceased was 22 years, awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,100/- as compensation, treating him as skilled labour on the basis of minimum wage i.e. Rs.68/- per day. The Insurance Company came in appeal and this Court did not interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal about compensation and rejected the same. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned Tribunal observed that from the applicant's evidence it is not clear that the deceased was working as 'mistri' and was skilled labour, and recorded a finding that he was of tender age and was a non-earning member. After considering the applicant's evidence, I find that the finding of the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the above referred judgment in United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Saroj Devi (supra) is not applicable. It is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Bai Vs. Charan Singh , 1998 (2) ACJ 848 awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in the case of death of a boy of 20 years of age. The above discussions make it clear that the accident took place in the year 1990 and no claim application was filed immediately and it // 6 // was filed with a delay of 8 years but in view of the fact that there is no discussion in the impugned Award about limitation or the delay in filing the claim application, I do not think it fit and proper to comment on the said point. So far as the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is concerned, I find that the learned Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the age of the father of the deceased, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case with interest, cannot be said to be a meager amount and the same appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//