IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1633/2001 {Mishrya & Others Versus Prem Raj & Others} Date of Judgment :: 12th November, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.R. Surana, counsel for the appellants Mr. Abhishek Jain for Mr. Alok Garg, counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 21.7.2001 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,52,941/- in favour of claimants appellants and against the respondents no.1. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is thus: “That on 20.6.1996 at about 9.00 AM, the deceased Kalyani having her son Sohan Lal in her lap, was sitting on Bus Stand Addoo on way side and waiting for a Bus to go to Gangapur City. Juxtaposed to her, Radhey Shyam and Ram Bharosi were also waiting for the bus. Suddenly a red colour Messy Tractor along-with trolley emerged from Gangapur City, being driven by its driver respondent no.1 Prem Raj rashly and negligently. Having lost the control, the driver ran over the tractor on Kalyani resulting her death on the spot and grievous injuries to her son Sohan Lal.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record. 4. Sermonising on the object of social welfare legislation, the learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that awards to the tune of crores of rupees are passed but in the instant case, the learned Tribunal has compensated the appellants with a paultry amount of Rs. 3,52,941/- for the death of a young lady of 30 years of age, who was a king- pin or pivot in her home. She has been survived with four minor sons. She is considered to have been earning only Rs. 1200/- per month by doing work as a labourer, whereas she was earning much more than that. In addition to that, she also used to do the agriculture and domestic work. He further contended that in the said accident, injured Sohan Lal sustained three injuries. He remained admitted in the hospital at Karauli for about 7-8 days. In the said accident, his jaw was broken and his face got disfigured. Despite it, the learned Tribunal awarded a very meagre quantum of compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,52,941/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference therein is called for and the appeal of the appellants deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the income of the deceased, as contended by the appellants, has been accepted by the learned Tribunal as it was. In the claim petition, the income of the deceased has been recorded to be Rs 1200/- per month. AW 1 Mishriya, the husband of deceased deposed before the Tribunal that his wife Kalyani was getting Rs. 40/- per day as a labourer. That also comes to Rs. 1200/- income per month. Despite there being evidence only of Rs. 1200/- per month income, the learned Tribunal softly determined the deceased's income to be Rs. 1500/- per month for the purpose of computing compensation. Second schedule appended to M.V. Act envisages deduction of 1/3rd amount of compensation in consideration of what the victim would have spent on maintaining herself, had she been alive, but looking to the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal further adopted a very liberal and beneficial view by deducting only 1/5th amount for her personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. Keeping in view the age of the deceased being 30 years, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 as per the Second Schedule appended with the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration various other aspects for the purpose of computing the quantum of compensation. Therefore, so far as the deceased Kalyani is concerned, I am of the view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal seems to be just and proper and no interference is called for. 7. It is germane to be recorded that the amount of compensation is not to be awarded arbitrarily but the same is required to be passed keeping in view the multiple factors such as the age & income of the victim, number of dependents, money spent on treatment etc. It is of course, not a bonanza. 8. So far as the injured Sohan Lal is concerned, it is noticed that at the time of accident, he was a small child of 4 years of age. In the said accident, he sustained three injuries, his jaw was broken and he remained admitted in hospital for about 7-8 days. Looking to all these factors, I deem just and proper to enhance the quantum of compensation under the head of 'pain, mental agony and nutritional diet' from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 13,000/-. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation under the award is enhanced from Rs. 3,52,941/- to Rs. 3,60,941/-. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1633/2001 {Mishrya & Others Versus Prem Raj & Others} Date of Order :: 12th November, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.R. Surana, counsel for the appellants Mr. Abhishek Jain for Mr. Alok Garg, counsel for the respondents In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation under the award is enhanced from Rs. 3,52,941/- to Rs. 3,60,941/-. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. (See separate judgment). (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-