1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 124 of 1996 BHANWAR LAL V/S BAHADUR SINGH Mr. RK MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BK BHATNAGAR for Mr. SURESH KUMBHAT, for the respondent Date of Order : 7.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the owner and the insurer, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali dt. 21.11.1995, passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 98/93. So far the appeal by the insurer is concerned, in my view, since the only challenge in the appeal is to the quantum of compensation awarded, and since no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been obtained from the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the insurer is simply not maintainable, and is dismissed. So far treating it as the appeal by the owner is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the 2 appellant, that the learned Tribunal has erred in employing the multiplier of 20, while making calculation of compensation. It is contended, that the deceased was unmarried young man of 21 years, and the claimants are the parents, and in such circumstances, the multiplier to be employed is, on the basis of the age of the claimants, and not on the basis of age of the deceased. Accordingly it is contended, that in the present case the appropriate multiplier should have been only 5, or in any case not exceeding 8, and thus, if the amount of dependency, as assessed by the learned Tribunal is calculated, the award is required to be accordingly reduced. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment by contending that, the claimants are not only the parents, but the brother is also one of the claimants, who was 23 years of age at that time, and is a mentally retarded person, and is also a dependent of the deceased, therefore, the multiplier employed by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record. A look at the evidence of A.W.1 Bahadur Singh, the father of deceased shows, that he has deposed that he, his 3 wife, and the other claimant Jabbar Singh, did survive on the income of the deceased only, as Jabbar Singh is a mad man, and could not recover despite treatment for the last long time, and that he has one more son, who lives separately for the last 20-25 years. In cross-examination he has deposed, that his eldest son is Pratap Singh, who cultivates the land named Tiwava, on which land two crops are cultivated, wherein this witness has 15 Bighas share. However, he has denied that his all the three sons lived jointly, and maintained family. He has, however, admitted that the land is being got cultivated through others, by being given for cultivation. Then, A.W.2 Pratap Singh is the other brother of the deceased. He has interalia deposed, that he is maintaining the mad brother Jabbar Singh, and that, he had spent money for the treatment of Jabbar Singh. Thus, it shows that there were three brothers, including the deceased, and apart from the parents, Jabbar Singh is also one of the claimants, who was also dependent on the family, which appears to be maintained by the income of the deceased, and the income of Pratap Singh as well. In such circumstances, of course, so far as the claimants parents are concerned, the multiplier is to be much on the lower side, looking to their age, but at the same time, the fact of third claimant being Jabbar Singh, the mad brother of the deceased, who also was partly dependent on the 4 deceased, cannot be lost sight of, altogether. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, I think it appropriate, that multiplier of 10 should be employed, instead of 20, as employed by the learned Tribunal. So far the deductions made to the extent of 20%, on account of uncertainties of the life is concerned, it is not sustainable, for the reason, that when the compensation is assessed on multiplier basis, then no deduction is permissible under this head. Thus, maintaining the dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal, being at Rs. 1300/- per month, and employing multiplier of 10, the compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,56,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal being Rs. 2,65,000/-, is reduced to Rs. 1,56,000/-. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/