1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1400/2006 (Parveen Begum and ors. Vs. Waqar Ahmed and anr.) Date of Judgment : 29-06-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Anshuman Saxena, for the appellants. Mr.Virendra Agrawal, for respondent/s. Both the parties agreed for final disposal of this appeal at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the dependents of deceased Ishtiyaq Ansari for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, & Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur vide judgment dated 10.1.2006 whereby a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- was awarded to the claimant- appellants by way of compensation on account of death of deceased caused in the accident. 4. The only challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants 2 submits that the deceased was a young man of 30 years and has left behind him young widow of 36 years and three minor children. It is further submitted that the deceased was engaged in cutting & polishing diamonds and had also installed a machine at his residence and had employed a worker and, as such, his income was Rs.9000/- per month for which evidence has been led but the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month and the amount has been awarded after deducting 1/3rd as against own expenses. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, and 3 on going through the award,as also, the record of the case, it is revealed that the deceased was survived with young widow and three children (two sons of 7-8 years and one daughter of 5 years) and that the accident is of the year 2004 and as per the evidence adduced, deceased was engaged in cutting and polishing the diamonds and had also installed the machine at his residence. In support of his income, his widow has been examined and AW-2 Abdul Latif has also been examined who has stated on oath that he himself was employed with the deceased and was getting Rs.4000/-. However, no documentary evidence in support of this ocular evidence has been put-forth. In view of this position, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month. The income assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side as the position of deceased is on higher pedestal than the skilled labour because he had installed a machine for cutting and polishing diamonds at his residence. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence led on record, monthly income of deceased 4 deserves to be assessed to be Rs.4,000/- in place of Rs.3000/- and the amount of compensation deserves to be computed by taking second schedule to the M.V.Act to be the guideline as done by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount can be calculated as under: 4000x12=48,000-1/3rd (against own expenses) =32,000x18(multiplier)=5,76,000-4,32,000 (already awarded)=1,44,000/- (to be additionally awarded). 8. Accordingly, while maintaining other terms of the award, the total amount is ordered to be enhanced by additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,44,000/- from the date of appeal i.e. 12.4.2006, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest @9% per annum shall be payable. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.54