- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 121 of 1996 SMT RADHA & ORS. V/S LRS SAWARAM & ORS. (2) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 428 of 1996 PANCHAYAT SAMITI-AHORE V/S SMT.RADHA Mr. ANIL BHANDARI for Mr.NM LODHA, for the claimant- appellant Mr. AS RATHORE, for the owner appellant Date of Order : 7.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 25.8.1995 awarding a compensation of Rs.100210/- to the claimant in the death case. Appeal No.121/96 is filed by the claimant while Appeal No.428/96 is filed by the owner. However, learned counsel for the owner-appellant pleads no instructions, and therefore, the Appeal No.428/96 is dismissed. Arguing the appeal No.121, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the award of compensation made by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and requires to - 2 - be suitably enhanced. It was contended that the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.600/- per month only, and after making deduction for personal expenditure has assessed the dependency of Rs.400/- per month, while from the evidence of the claimants, it is clearly established that the deceased was earning Rs.1200/- per month from the shoe shop of which he has been proved to be owner and was also earning Rs.300/- per month from the liquor shop. Thus he was earning Rs.1500/- per month and therefore, even after deducting personal expenditure, the dependency should have been calculated at Rs.1000/- per month and the compensation required to be accordingly enhanced. Since learned counsel for the owner has pleaded no instructions, I have considered the submissions and have examined the record. The learned Tribunal has found that so far the income from the liquor contract is concerned, it is not shown as to in whose name, the contract was granted, and who was paying Rs.300/- per month to the deceased, and the evidence produced by the claimant does not throw any light on this aspect, therefore, this income has been disbelieved. Then so far as the income from the shoe store is concerned, relying upon Ex.29 & 30, it has been found that the deceased appears to be owner of the said shop, but - 3 - then merely from that it cannot be assumed that the income of the deceased was Rs.1200/- per month from the shop as no details have been shown even broadly, as to what was the capital investment, what was the gross turn over, and what was the gross profit etc., therefore, this part of the claim was also disbelieved. However, considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years, and considering the fact of his to be owner of the shop, it was considered that all said and done, he must be earning something, and therefore, the income was assessed at Rs.600/- per month. I have examined the evidence in this regard as has been produced by the claimants. So far as the income from the liquor contract is concerned, of course, A.W.1 and 2 have deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per month from the liquor contract as he was taking liquor contract. P.W.2 has also deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per month from the liquor shop. However, a look at the statement of A.W.4, Pukhraj, shows that he is the brother-in-law gainer of the deceased, and that the liquor contract was in the name of the witness, then has has further deposed that the deceased was like his partner and therefore, there is no question of giving him any salary, rather it was a 50:50 partnership. He has also deposed that he was not paying him any salary of Rs.300/- per month, and has further deposed that in that year, he has rather suffered losses in the liquor business. With - 4 - this, there is no other evidence to show that there was any income in the previous years from liquor business. As such, in my view, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was in error in disbelieving the claim of income from the liquor contract, or liquor shop. Then coming to the question of income from the shoe shop, in this regard also, P.W.1 has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.1200/- per month from the shop. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, and has deposed that all the four brothers are living as a joint family, whose head is the father, they all live in one house, and in commensality. Then A.W.2 is the father of the deceased, who also has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.1000/- to 1200/- per month from the shoe shop, and that he was giving Rs.500/- per month to him, which he was spending on the family and that he was giving Rs.600 to 700/- per month to his wife and children. It may be observed here that the wife of the deceased has not been produced to depose that the deceased was paying Rs.700/- per month to her for herself and for her children. In that view of the matter, on a proper reading and appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, all that transpires at best is, that the deceased was paying Rs.500/- per month to the father, who was spending this amount on the family. Even if this were taken to be the dependency, it comes to Rs.6000/- per year. Then the learned Tribunal has employed a multiplier of 17, which - 5 - in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is excessive, and looking to the age of the deceased being 30 years, the appropriate multiplier required to be employed is 13 only, and if that is so employed, the compensation of loss of income comes to Rs.78,000/-, while the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under this head at Rs.81,600/-. In my view, in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is inadequate, so as to be required enhancement in this appeal. It was then contended that the rate of interest awarded is low. Perusal of the award shows, that the interest has been awarded at 6% per annum. The perusal of the file of the appeal No.428 shows, that the stay application was dismissed at the initial stage itself. In that view of the matter, the payment must have been made to the claimants,and if payment has been made, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the rate of interest now. However, it is directed that if the payment has not been made till the date, then the amount of award shall carry interest at 9% per annum instead of 6%. The appeal No.121/96 thus, has no force and is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/