{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.677/1999 Kelash Chandra & Ors. Vs. Basanti Lal @ Bansi Lal & Ors. Date of order : 5.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. Mr. U.C.S.Singhvi, for the respondents. 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. 1.8.1997 passed by MACT, Bhilwara in Claim Case No.395/94. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants for the death of one Ajay Kumar, 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 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 } 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar for the appellants and Mr.U.C.S.Singhvi, 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 29.6.1994, one Ajay Kumar aged around 24 years young and unmarried boy with a degree of Chartered Accountant to his credit so also certificate of Company Secretary, died in vehicular accident. This gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives under Section 166 ibid claiming compensation for his death. It was contested by non- applicants (insured, insurer and driver of offending vehicle). Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and in in consequence, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. It was held that deceased's monthly income was Rs.6750/-. The Tribunal then determined annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- i.e. Rs.1500/- per month = Rs.18,000/- yearly and applying the multiplier of 10, awarded to claimants a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards consortium etc. It is in this view, a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was awarded to claimants for his death giving rise to filing of this appeal by claimants. 5. I have perused the evidence on the issue of deceased's monthly income which alone was challenged by learned counsel for the appellant as being wrongly determined by the Tribunal. It { 3 } was his submission that Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the issue of deceased's income by ignoring the documents filed by claimants. Though this submission was refuted by learned counsel for the respondent but I find force in this submission in part. 6. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 inter-alia are the documents filed by claimants to prove the status, qualification and occupation of deceased and his monthly income. It clearly proves that deceased, was a Chartered Accountant/Company Secretary with good educational background to his credit. The mark sheets and certificates prove this fact. Ex.P-17 is his appointment letter. It was just few days prior to his death. Taking into consideration the letter of appointment (Ex.P-17) which was duly proved and the pay package given to deceased by his employer, I can certainly take Rs.7000/- to be his monthly income which inter-alia includes his basic salary and other perks admissible for being included in his salary while determining the dependency. 7. Once I take Rs.7000/- to be the monthly salary of deceased then on deduction of 1/3rd from the total income, we get a sum of Rs.4000/- by way of dependency because claimant was unmarried. This makes a total of Rs.48,000/- yearly. To this we apply a multiplier of 15 as per schedule. In this way, we get a sum of Rs.48,000x15=Rs.7,20,000/-. To this we add by awarding in lumpsum a total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards consortium such as expenses towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection etc. This makes a total of Rs.7,20,000+Rs.25,000=Rs.7,45,000/-. 8. In other words, in my view, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.7,45,000/- by way of compensation for the death of deceased “Ajay Kumar”. 9. 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 { 4 } 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. 10. 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 8. The enhanced awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 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. /tarun/