1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1882/2000 (Smt.Archana Bhatnagar Vs. Mudivardhi Shyam Suunder and ors.) 2. S.B.CIVIL CROSS OBJECTION NO.25/2001 (Smt.Archana Bhatnagar Vs. Mudivardhi Shyam Suunder and ors.) 3. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1916/2000 (Smt.Archana Bhatnagar Vs. Mudivardhi Shyam Suunder and ors.) 4. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1922/2000 (Kumari Pallavi Bhatnagar Vs. Mudivardhi Shyam Suunder and ors.) Date of Judgment : 23-04-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.R.P.Garg,for the appellants. Mr.Vinod Tyagi, for the respondent- Ins.Company/Cross Objector. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of appellant-claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota vide judgment dated 2.8.2000. CMA No.1882/2000 (Claim case no.1965/98) & Cross Obj.No.25/01. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of dependents of deceased Sanjay Raghuveer 2 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota vide judgment dated 2.8.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- was awarded by way of compensation for the death of deceased caused in the accident. The cross objection no. 25/01 has also been filed on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that rate of interest @12% is too excessive and that deserves to be scaled down. 5. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the adequate compensation by not adopting second schedule to the M.V.Act to be the guidelines and the amount may be enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for 3 no interference. It is further submitted that the amount of income and dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal call for no interference as the claimants have failed to produce the income certificate of the deceased. It is also submitted that rate of interest @12% awarded by the learned Tribunal is too excessive and that may be scaled down. 8. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the deceased is stated to be employed in mines and the learned Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.5000/- per month as no income certificate could be brought on record, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the income assessed. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.3000/- per month to be the amount of dependency which calls for no interference. As regards the multiplier, the learned Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 16 in view of age of deceased being 35 years while it has adopted the multiplier of 9 only. As regards the challenge on the 4 ground of interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the interest is required to be awarded in view of prevailing state of economy. In this matter, interest was awarded in the year 2000 and at that time, rate of interest was 12%, as such, awarding of interest calls for no interference. However, interest @6% on the enhanced amount deserves to be awarded. Thus the amount deserves to be calculated as under: 3000x12x16(multiplier)=5,76,000-3,24,000 (already awarded)=2,52,000 (to be additionally awarded). 9. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 25.10.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. The cross- objection filed by the Insurance Company has no force and is hereby dismissed. 5 CMA No.1916/2000 (Claim case no.1966/98) 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant Smt.Archna Bhatnagar for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota vide judgment dated 2.8.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.27,550/- was awarded by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 12. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that injured appellant has not been adequately compensated for four months period of immobilization as she has sustained fracture and could not attend the work, therefore, amount may be enhanced. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has 6 awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 15. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the injured is a Teacher and she had sustained fracture and she could not attend the work. Her income is assessed to be Rs.5000/- per month, as such, she deserves to be awarded RS.25,000/- by way of additional compensation for the period of 4 months immobilization during treatment. 16. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 25.10.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. 7 CMA No.1922/2000 (Claim case no.1967/98) 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant Kumari Pallavi for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota vide judgment dated 2.8.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.32,290/- was awarded by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 19. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that injured appellant was a child of 6 years at the time of accident and she had sustained serious injuries including depressed fracture in right parietal bone resulting to various complications and, as such, amount of Rs.30,000/- deserves to be additionally awarded. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration 8 evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 22. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that though there is no certificate of disability on record showing the percentage of disability but from the facts narrated above and the evidence available on record, it is revealed that injured has sustained serious injuries and as such, additional enhanced amount as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be reasonable and, hence Rs.30,000/- is ordered to be awarded over and above what has been already awarded in this case. 23. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 25.10.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the 9 terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.h/40-43