1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5177/2008 {National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Kamli Devi & Others} Date of Order :: 18th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. V.P. Mathur for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 1st September, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,23,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents in respect of death of Babu Lal, who died in motor accident took place on 24th October, 2004. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant-Insurance Company moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal which was allowed on 24th February, 2006, therefore, 2 he is entitled to challenge the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. His only submission in this appeal is that the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on a higher side, particularly when deceased was holding a BPL card and still the Tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs. 36,000/- i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month, therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the age of deceased and multiplier adopted for assessing the amount of compensation are concerned, the same have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. His only grievance is about the assessment of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 wherein it was admitted that BPL card was issued in the year 1997 wherein the age of her husband is mentioned as 30 years. The BPL card was also placed on record as Ex. NA 1/3. The 3 Tribunal has observed that the BPL card was issued in the year 1997 whereas the incident took place on 24th October, 2004 i.e. after seven years from the date of issuance of the card. The age of the deceased in the year 1997 was 30 yers, therefore, Tribunal determined his age as 37 years i.e. in between 35 to 40 years and applied the multiplier of 16 according to the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fakirappa Versus Karnataka Cement Pipe {2004 (2) T.A.C. (S.C.) 08} and Haryana State Versus Jasbeer Kaur {2003 A.C.T.C. (S.C.) 326 and on the basis of aforesaid cases assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the dependency amount as Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- under the head of loss of income. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, based on judgments of the Supreme Court and I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the 4 appellant. It is true that the compensation is not a bonanza but it is also settled that it should not be a meager amount also. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every mode or method adopted for assessing the compensation has to be taken into consideration in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the leaned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above and in my view no interference in it is called for. 6. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3294/2008 In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5177/2008 {National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Kamli Devi & Others} Date of Order :: 18th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. V.P. Mathur for the appellant Consequent upon the dismissal of the misc. appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 6