1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 427/2006 {Abdul Hafees & Another Versus Dashrath Singh & Another} Date of Order :: 6th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Bharat Yadav for the appellants Ms. Lalima Purohit for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Ms. Lalima Purohit on behalf of Mr. R.S. Bhati appears for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The impugned award dated 7th October, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in M.A.C.T. Case No. 251/2005 is under challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Wasid, who died in an accident took place on 21st September, 2001 arising out of use of motor vehicle, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.67,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding the amount of compensation at a lower side in respect of 2 death of Wasid, who died in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- only whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court even in the cases of child death has awarded lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He further submits that although in the claim application, it was pleaded that the deceased was Mistry and was earning Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 7500/- per month, but in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal did not believe on the said income and determined his income as Rs. 1500/- per month, whereas under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wage was Rs. 72/- per day at the relevant time. He, therefore, contended that at-least the amount of minimum wages ought to have been taken into consideration while calculating the amount of loss of income. He further contended that even as per finding of the learned Tribunal, the parents of deceased were in between the age of 55 to 60 years, but learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of five, whereas as per second schedule, the multiplier of eight ought to have been applied, therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income and under other heads may be enhanced reasonably. He submits that at- 3 least Rs. 1,50,000/- may be awarded as compensation in favour of claimant-appellants. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the minimum wage was Rs. 72/- per day at the relevant time and the multiplier of eight as per second schedule in respect of persons aged in between 55 to 60 years is applicable. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal particularly the finding in respect of issue no. 7 relating to quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal considered the contents of claim application that deceased was 27 years of age and his income was 7500/- per month and he was mistry. However, in absence of any cogent evidence in respect of income of deceased, the learned Tribunal determined his income as Rs. 1500/- per month. The learned Tribunal further considered that the Abdul Hafees, the father of deceased stated his age to be 60 years and as such he determined the age of claimants in between 55 to 60 years. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of five and awarded Rs. 90,000/-, but deducted 1/3rd amount out of it for 4 personal expenses and thus, awarded net amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 7000/- were further awarded under other heads and as such total amount of Rs. 67,000/- has been awarded as compensation for death of deceased in the present case. It is true that claimants did not place on record any documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased, but as not disputed by learned counsel for both the parties that minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs. 72/- per day and further that for the age of victim in between 55 to 60 years, the multiplier of 8 is applicable as per second schedule. In the present case, the claimants are parents, therefore, their age is relevant and according to their age and even as per finding of the learned Tribunal, they were in between 55 to 60 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of eight is applicable. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the amount of compensation properly and thus, in my view the proper compensation in the present case should be Rs. 72/- per day x 30 = Rs. 2160 X 12 = Rs. 25,920/- X 8 = Rs. 2,07,360/-. 1/3rd amount is deduced for personal expenses of the deceased, 5 therefore, remaining 2/3 amount of Rs. 2,07,360/- comes to Rs. 1,38,240/-. Rs. 11,760/ are further awarded under other heads, therefore, the total amount of compensation in the present case is awarded i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/-. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 7th October, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in M.A.C.T. Case No. 251/2005 is modified and amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 67,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest also @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application till the date of realization. 8. The cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK