[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 306/2003 ROOPWATI & ORS. Vs. BABU SINGH & ORS. Date: 27.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Man Singh with Mr. Anirudh Singh for the claimants-appellants. Mr. Anil Kumar for Mr. Biri Singh for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Mehta with Mr. Vigyan Shah for the respondent No.4. **** The claimants/appellants have preferred the instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 222/99 vide impugned judgment/Award dated 09.10.2002, whereby an award to the tune of Rs. 2,57,400/- has been passed in favour of the claimants/appellants. The enhancement of compensation has been prayed for by the claimants/appellants mainly on the ground that admittedly at the time of death the deceased was only 25 years of age and correct multiplier has not been applied and while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 18. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company has submitted [2] that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has passed the just and reasonable award applying the multiplier of 16 and it is not hard and fast law to apply correct multiplier as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others, 2005(3) A.C.J. 1441, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “Considering the age of the deceased and the principles indicated above, the appropriate multiplier would be 12 and not 16 as adopted by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. By applying multiplier of 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures). The Tribunal has fixed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition. Taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits, the same is fixed at 7.5 per cent per annum. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 22.3.2004. The balance amount shall be deposited with the Tribunal within four weeks from today. Out of the total deposited 90 per cent of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of widow, respondent No.1, minor child, respondent No.2 and the mother, respondent No.3 in the proportion of 35 per cent, 40 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Rest 10 per cent shall be paid in cash equally to the widow and the mother. [3] Fixed deposits shall be made initially for a period of five years and no withdrawal is permitted and only monthly interest will be paid, so far as the fixed deposits in the names of the widow and the mother are concerned. So far as the minor child is concerned, fixed deposit shall be made initially for a period of five years and shall be renewed till the child attains majority. The monthly interest on the deposit shall also be released to the mother as the guardian of the minor.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala & Ors., reported in MACD 2006(2) (SC) 968, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accident took place on 29.11.90- Looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier would be 13 and not 22- Quantum of compensation reduced from Rs. 6,07,200/- to 3,37,000/-. Interest reduced to 9% from 12% p.a. Learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants submits that the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred above by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, is not applicable to the instant case as the compensation which has been awarded after applying multiplier of 16 and considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month to the tune of [4] Rs. 2,57,400/-, cannot said to be just and reasonable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India & Anr., reported in 2003(3) SCC 148. In this case, the question of multiplier was in dispute. The deceased at the time of accident was 40 years of age and multiplier of 15 was applied. While dealing with the application of multiplier, the Apex Court observed in para 11, 12 and 14 which reads as under:- “11. It is not a well settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation of the structured formula however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. The victim at the relevant time was 40 years of age. The Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15. The only question which is required to be considered now is as to how the multiplicand should be arrived at. 14. Having regard to the prospects and advancement of the future career a higher estimate of the yearly income at [5] Rs. 45,000/- would not be out of place. From the said amount one- third of the gross income towards personal living expenses should be deducted. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- should, thus be determined as the loss of dependency. The said sum should be capitalized by applying the multiplier of 15, which comes to Rs. 4,50,000/-.” I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties, carefully gone through the relevant record as also the impugned Award dated 09.10.2002 passed by the Tribunal and have also perused the judgments referred before this Court by the learned counsel for the respective parties in support of their contentions. The only dispute involved in this case is with regard to applying correct multiplier and it is not disputed that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of death and the correct multiplier, as per the Schedule, is 18 whereas the multiplier of 16 has been applied by the Tribunal while granting compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. Upon careful perusal of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, individual case is to be examined on the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not [6] applicable to the instant case and since correct multiplier has not been applied by the Tribunal, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants/appellants required to be enhanced while exercising powers under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,57,400/- vide its impugned Award dated 09.10.2002 is lump sum enhanced to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the enhanced compensation amount to the claimants/appellants within a period of two months, failing which the Insurance Company will have to make the payment of the enhanced amount with interest @ 6% p.a. With these observations, the impugned Award dated 09.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. The civil misc. appeal stands partly allowed accordingly. Record be sent back forthwith. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/