1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.3108/2008 (Smt.Nana Devi and ors. Vs. Mahaveer Prasad and ors.) Date of Judgment : 16-09-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants. Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, for the respondents. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is being heard and finally disposed of at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellants-dependents of deceased for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur vide judgment dated 5.6.2006 whereby a sum of Rs.3,46,312/- was awarded by way of compensation for the death of deceased in the accident. 4. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 2 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also engaged in selling milk but the Tribunal has assessed his income on lower side as a sum of RS.15,000/- per annum has been assessed as family contribution while his income should have been assessed atleast Rs.3000/- per month. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and anr. Vs. Jasbir Kaur and ors.-(2003)7 SCC,484 wherein income of agriculturist who died in the year 1999 was assessed to be Rs.3000/- per month. It is further submitted that deduction as against the expenses of deceased, deserves to be made 1/4th instead of 1/3rd in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Sarla Verma and anr. Vs. DTC and ors.-2009(6)SCC,121. 6. 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 no interference. It is further strenuously 3 argued that no evidence has been submitted to prove the exact earning of the deceased and as such, family contribution assessed as Rs.15,000/- is reasonable and calls for no interference. 7. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that deceased was young man and is survived by his widow, children and mother and thus total number of dependents comes to 5 and, as such, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in Sarla Verma's case, deduction of 1/4th deserves to be made as against the own expenses of deceased. That apart, earning of deceased deserves to be assessed as Rs.3000/- per month following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Jasbir Kaur's case (supra) as the deceased was an agriculturist and was also engaged in selling milk. Thus the amount of compensation can be comptued as under: Rs.2250x12x17(multiplier)=Rs.4,59,000- (minus)Rs.2,55,000(already awarded) =Rs.2,04,000/- (to be additionally awarded). 4 8. Accordingly, appeal of the injured- appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the injured-appellant shall get a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 4.9.2006, 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. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.111