- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 65 of 1997 MST BHAGWATI DEVI AND OTHERS V/S SALEEM MOHMAD Mr. RK CHARAN, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. YASHWANT MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 18.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimant, against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 28.11.95, for enhancement of the compensation, awarded for death of Gopalpuri. The necessary facts are, that Gopalpuri alongwith one Shyam Singh was traveling on motorcycle, from Meja dam to Bhilwara, and at that time, the motorcycle was hit by the delinquent jeep, as a result of which, both of them have died. Since the question of negligence etc., are not in controversy, as there is no cross-appeal or cross- objection, I feel it appropriate to confine myself to the question of quantum only. - 2 - The learned Tribunal, deciding issue No.5 found, that the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased, as pleaded, and assessing the income on the basis of minimum wages rates, assessed it at Rs.750/- per month, and then making deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenditure, and employing multiplier of 15, assessed the compensation on account of death at Rs.90,000/-. Then awarding other amounts payable, a total award of Rs.1,40,000/- has been passed. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant read to me the statements of the claimant Bhagwati Devi, and her father-in-law, the father of the deceased, being Heerapuri, and contended, that the assessment of dependency is inadequate, he also contended that the multiplier employed by the learned trial Court is also inadequate. Having read the statements of the appellant Bhagwati Devi, and the claimant Heerapuri, the father of the deceased, it transpires, that the witnesses have claimed, that the deceased was carrying on agricultural operations also, was operating a motor body workshop also, and was employed as a driver of the truck also, belonging to Babupuri, where-from he was receiving a salary of Rs.2200/- per month. Significantly, the appellant, Bhagwati Devi had clearly deposed, that she is in possession of all - 3 - documentary evidence, regarding the income being derived from the workshop, that the deceased was income tax payee, record whereof is also with her, and that she is maintaining account of the amount received by her from her husband, and expenditure incurred by her. Significantly, notwithstanding this, none of the documents have been produced, for reasons best known to the claimants, and not required to be gone into by this Court. With this, the registration etc. of the workshop has also not been produced, and from a look at the statement of Heerapuri, it transpires, that the plot on which the workshop is functioning, is of the ownership of the claimants, with this, the statement about Heera Lal Khati being giving Rs.100/- - Rs.200/- per month, shows, that as a matter of fact, the workshop does not appear to be belonging to the deceased, or to be being operated by him, otherwise the documents regarding registration etc. and ownership, could very well have been produced, so also the income derived therefrom. In my view, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of Babupuri, about the deceased being employed by him. Thus, in the totality of circumstances, in my view, the learned trial Court was right in assessing the income, on the basis of minimum wages rates, as it is not shown, or established, that the deceased was an otherwise skilled person. - 4 - Coming to the multiplier, in view of the recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, including those in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and two others reported in JT 2005(4) SC 531, The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. K.I. Bindu and Ors. reported in JT 2005(10) SC 501, and The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana & Others reported in JT 2007(2) SC 353, wherein the Hon'ble the Supreme Court has interfered with the multiplier employed, in my view, it cannot be said, that the multiplier employed is inadequate, so as to require interference. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/