{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.576/1998 Smt.Ratan Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Pema Ram Megwal & Ors. Date of order : 3.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar } Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat }, for the appellants. Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary for Mr. B.S. Rajpurohit for the respondent Insurance Co. BY THE COURT: 1. This is a misc. appeal filed by claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) against an award dt. 29.7.1998 passed by MACT, Merta in Claim Case No.100/93. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants for the death of one Ramchandra Singh, who died in vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded to them is in lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the { 2 } claimants have come in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by Tribunal on fact/evidence is made out and if so to what extent? 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar assisted by Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat for the appellants and Mr.Dhanpat Choudhary appearing on behalf of Mr. B.S. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/driver, or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to burden my judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 4. It is a death case. On 2.9.1993, Ramchandra, aged 35 years - a labourer died in vehicular accident. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives, out of which this appeal arises under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the death of Ramchandra. It was filed against insured, insurer and driver of offending vehicle. It was contested by non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. It was held that deceased was aged 35 years and his monthly earning was Rs.2,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. It is against this award, the claimants have come up in appeal claiming enhancement. { 3 } 5. I have gone through the evidence. Having gone through the same, I am of the view that the interference can be made at 2 places, namely for applying multiplier of 17 in place of 15 and secondly while awarding compensation towards consortium. So far as deceased's monthly income is concerned, the Tribunal rightly held it to be Rs.2,000/-. I concur with this finding because deceased being a labourer and he himself having said in the claim petition about his monthly earning (Rs.2,000/-), I do not find any ground to further increase the same. In this view of the matter, we deduct 1/3rd out of Rs.2,000/- and get a sum of Rs.1,300/- for calculating dependency i.e. Rs.1,300 x 12 = Rs.15,600/- yearly. To this, we apply a multiplier of 17 and accordingly get a sum of Rs.15,600/- x 17 = Rs.2,65,200/-. To this we add by awarding in lump sum a total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards consortium such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. and get a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.2,90,000/-. 6. In other words, in my view, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Ramchandra Singh. 7. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 8. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 6. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of { 4 } 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.1500/-, if certified. (A.M.SAPRE ),J. /Anil/