1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.816/2004 Bidami Devi & Ors. Vs. Sh. Om Prakash & Ors. Dated of Order ::: 15th March, 2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Praveen Jain with Mr. M.R. Choudhary, for the appellants. Mrs. Manju Jain for the respondents. *** Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30th January, 2004 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has decreed an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against respondents. Dissatisfied with this amount, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. An unfortunate accident occurred on 10th April, 2001 at 7.30 PM when the deceased Shankar Lal was going from Chomu to Jaipur by a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-14-1P-133. No sooner did this Jeep reach opposite Rathi Petrol Pump situated at Rajawas, another Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-21C-4350 suddenly emerged and dashed against Jeep No.RJ-14- 1P-133 resulting into the death of Shankar Lal and injuries to other passengers, sitting inside the Jeep. 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants- appellants focused his arguments only on one count that the learned Tribunal considered only Rs.1500/- to be the monthly income of deceased Shankar Lal whereas he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal considered this income without any basis arbitrarily. It is true that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased but since he was maintaining his wife and children, it can be presumed that he must have been earning more than Rs.1500/- per month. Learned counsel impressed upon that a monthly income at least of Rs.3,000/- be taken into consideration and the amount of compensation be recalculated, applying the multiplier of 17 as per the second scheduled appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. E converso, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Co. defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper. Mrs. Jain, learned counsel contended that the learned Tribunal after considerable thought took Rs.1500/- to be the monthly income of the deceased, which calls for no interference 3 and thus, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the deceased Shankar Lal at the time of accident, was 25 years old. He is said to have been earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the appellants claimants did not produce any evidence in support thereof. In the absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased, it cannot be said that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased has been projected to be an agriculturist and Rs.6,000/- income has been stated to be out of the agricultural produce but no revenue record with regard to land belonging to Shankar Lal has been produced. Thus, it cannot also be inferred that Shankar Lal had any agricultural land and out of it he was earning the said amount. However, it cannot be denied that the deceased, prior to his death, was earning livelihood for himself, for his wife and children. Therefore, it seems to be just and proper to take into consideration the minimum wages prevailing at the time of death of Shankar Lal. It is found that the minimum wages of an unskilled labour on the date of occurrence was Rs.60/- per day. If we take Rs.60/- per day minimum wages into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased comes 4 to Rs.1800/-. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of death. Hence, after applying the multiplier of 17 as provided in the second scheduled appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the loss of income is determined thus:- Rs.1800 X 12 X 17 X 66/100 = Rs.2,42,352/- 7. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which requires no change. But, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, I deem it proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellants-claimants. Thus, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to get Rs.2,49,352/- as compensation. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are held entitled to claim Rs.2,42,352/- towards the loss of income instead of Rs.2,04,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,06,000/- to Rs.2,49,352/-. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition, till it is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 9. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. 5 10. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg