1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1805/2000 Smt.Sudha Devi & ors vs Abdul Aziz &ors. S.B.Civil Misc. Appeals under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T Act, 1988 against the Award dated 3.2.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T.Jaipur City,Jaipur, in MAC No. 188/95 (Smt.Sudha Devi & ors vs Abdul Aziz & ors) by which a sum of Rs.6,50,744/- has been awarded to the claimants. DATE OF JUDGMENT :- MARCH, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI. Mr.K.N.Tiwari ,counsel for the appellants. Mr.Budhi Prakash Sharma for Mr.H.C.Ganeshiya, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 3.2.2000 passed by the Judge, MACT, Jaipur City,Jaipur, in MAC No.188/95 (Smt.Sudha Devi & ors vs Abdul Aziz & ors) by which learned Tribunal awarded claim of Rs.6,50,744/-. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 26.9.94 at 4.30P.M. Deceased Hari Narain was going on his Hero Puck. Respondent No.1 while driving bus RSG 717 rashly and negligently, hit Hero Puck from backside on account of which Hari Narain died. This bus is owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3,hence, appellants claimed compensation. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed reply and alleged that accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased. Respondent No.3 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,50,744/- , against which this appeal has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding Rs.15,000/- as consortium and Rs.5,000/- per head on account of love and affection to the appellants , 3 and further submitted that future prospects of the deceased have not been considered while awarding compensation, hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded compensation may be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation after applying multiplier as provided in Schedule, hence, no question arises for considering future prospects and further submitted that learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of consortium etc. hence, appeal may be dismissed. Perusal of Judgment of the learned Tribunal reveals that looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 13 has been applied. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, in age group of 45-50, years multiplier of 13 was to be applied. When while awarding compensation, multiplier has been applied as per Second Schedule, future prospects in awarding compensation are not to be looked. Learned counsel for the appellants has not placed any citation before me to substantiate his contention, that even after applying 4 multiplier as per Schedule, future prospects of the deceased are required to be considered. As far amount of consortium,love and affection is concerned, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- in the head of General Damages on account of loss of consortium,estate and funeral expenses. As per Second Schedule Rs.9,500/- could have been awarded in the head of General Damages ,whereas, learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,000/-. If multiplier mentioned in Schedule is to be applied while awarding compensation, General Damages are also to be awarded as mentioned in the Schedule. In case in hand, already Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for consortium etc. In such circumstances, Rs.15,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- per head for love and affection cannot be awarded and learned Tribunal has not committed error in not awarding amount prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the light of above discussions, award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require any 5 modification and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. CKThanvi