1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 525 of 1997 SMT. KANTA & ANR V/S KHAMISHA & ORS Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RK MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 6.11.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Barmer dt. 29.3.1997 decreeing the claim No. 83/95 for a sum of Rs.4,38,460/-. Brief necessary facts are that on 19.4.1995 the deceased Om Prakash along with Ramesh Kumar and Dwarka Das were going in Jeep No. RJ04/C-0495 from Ramsar to Barmer. At that time the jeep was hit by jonga wherein the deceased and Dwarka Das died. According to the claim petition the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, and the claimants are the wife and the minor son aged 10 months. Since the aspect of accident, negligence, liability of the insurer etc. are not in controversy before 2 me, I need not dilate on that. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate, and requires to be enhanced. A look at the finding of the learned trial court shows that deciding issue no. 2 the learned Tribunal has considered, that regarding the income, the claimant has produced Ex. 8 to 12, being the Income Tax Returns, and from Ex. 9 it was found that the returned income was Rs. 42,270/-, thus the monthly income was taken to be Rs. 3940/-. Then, it was considered that the family earlier comprised of five units, and thus deducting Rs. 1825/- the dependency was assessed at Rs. 2115/-, and applying multiplier of 17 compensation was assessed at Rs. 4,31,460/-. Then, adding the amount of Rs. 2000/- for cremation expenses, and adding Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium above award was passed. Arguing the appeal it was contended that the amount of income considered by the learned Tribunal is wrong, rather it is contrary to the material on record. Likewise, it was also contended that the figure of dependency arrived at is also grossly inadequate. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. 3 I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record. A look at the statement of the claimant Kanta shows that she had deposed that her husband was an income tax payee, and papers in this regard has been produced as Ex. 8 to 12. She has denied the suggestion of deceased earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. This is the only oral evidence on the side of the claimants, and there is no evidence on the side of the defence. In this background, a look at the document Ex. 8 to 12 shows that Ex. 8 is the acknowledgment of the income tax return for the assessment year 1994-95 i.e. accounting year 1993-94, wherein income has been shown at Rs. 47,270/-. Likewise, Ex. 9 is the computation of income for this very year, wherein the computation has been shown as to how annual income of Rs. 47,270/- was arrived at. Ex. 10 is the assessment order, then Ex. 11 is another acknowledgment of return of the deceased Om Prakash (HUF) for the same assessment year 1994-95 relating to accounting year 1993-94, and in this the income from business, and profession has been shown to be Rs. 9705/-. Thus, in my view, income of the deceased was required to be considered to be Rs. 56975/- being the total of Rs. 42270/- and Rs. 9705/- which is rounded to Rs. 57,000/- per year. Then, coming to the aspect of the dependency, in my view, the learned Tribunal should have made deduction to the extent of 1/3rd for personal 4 expenditure, instead of proceeding on unit basis, which is used to be adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court once upon a time, and now it has been given up. Thus, the dependency was required to be assessed at 2/3rd of Rs. 57,000/- which monthly comes to Rs. 43,122. But then, in my view, looking to the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the multiplier of 17 as employed by the learned Tribunal is excessive, looking to the age of the deceased who was 25 years of age at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier that could be employed would be of 13. Thus, this dependency figure, if multiplied by 13, the round up figure of dependency comes to Rs. 5,41,000/-. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded being Rs. 4,31,460/- is required to be enhanced to Rs. 5,41,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified in the manner that the total compensation awarded at Rs. 4,31,760 is enhanced to Rs. 5,41,000/-. The rest of the conditions of the award are maintained. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/