1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1043/1999 (Smt. Manjulata Sharma & Others Versus Rameshwar & Others) Date of Order :: 24.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, counsel for the appellants Mr. Ashish Sharma) counsel for the respondents Mr. A.K. Pareek ) BY THE COURT: The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. Contextual facts depict that on 25th June, 1989, deceased Rajkumar was going from Collectorate Office to Lohakhan, Police Line on his Spark bearing registration No. R.P.Z-4500. No sooner did he reach the Police Line Crossing, one Truck bearing registration No. RRZ 3951 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly emerged and sans blowing the horn, hit Rajkumar, as a result of which Rajkumar died. The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, which decreed an amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants and against the respondents. 3. Being aggrieved with the unjust amount of compensation, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of quantum of 2 compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Lower Division Clerk in District Transport Office, Bhilwara and was getting salary of Rs. 1565/- per month. Albeit the appellant no.1 has been appointed on compassionate ground on account of the death of Raj Kumar, but the learned Tribunal determined the monthly dependency to be Rs. 500/- per month only without taking into consideration the future prospects viz. annual grade increments, promotional avenues and hike in salary etc. Thus, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is at lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced and the appeal of the appellants deserves to be allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and prayed that the same did not call for any intervention. 3 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material, it is noticed that albeit the appellant no.1 has been appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband, but at the same time, the other aspects viz. future annual grade increments, promotional avenues, hike in salary etc. cannot be lost sight of. Had the deceased survived and continued in service, he would have availed the benefit of all these avenues, but he has been deprived of all. The appointment on compassionate ground to the wife of the deceased cannot fill the gap created by the death of her husband Raj Kumar. It is true that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.1561/- per month at the time of his death. It is also true that his wife Smt. Manjulata got compassionate appointment and she is also getting salary of Rs. 2500/- per month, but no cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal as to why an amount of Rs. 500/- only has been determined to ascertain the amount of compensation? Second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages that from the amount of compensation, 1/3rd shall be reduced in consideration of the expenses the 4 victim would have incurred on maintaining himself had he been alive, but in the instant case it is found that the learned Tribunal reduced his income by 2/3rd and considered only an income of 500/- rupees per month for ascertaining the amount of compensation, which is found to be totally contrary to the provisions of law. If the amount of compensation is not enhanced on account of providing compassionate appointment to the widow of the deceased, it may be one thing, but so far as the consideration of the income of the deceased at the time of his death is concerned, that has to be dealt with as per the guiding factors enunciated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Why did the learned Tribunal deviate from this well established principle is not clear from the award as no reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal therein. The claimants cannot be deprived of their right what they are entitled to get as per the provisions of law. Hence, I feel justified and lawful to reduce only 1/3rd from the amount of compensation in consideration of expenses the victim would have incurred on himself had he been alive. He was 30 years of age on the fateful day and the 5 multiplier of 17 as suggested for that age bracket can be applied. The amount of compensation is computed thus: 1561 X 12 X 2/3 X 17 = 2,12,296/- 8. The claimants are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,12,296/- for loss of income instead of Rs. 72,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on other various heads shall remain as they are. 9. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to claim Rs. 2,67,296/- instead of Rs. 1,27,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the same is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 10. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-