1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.272/1998 SMT. SHAKOORAN & Ors V/s VIRENDRA SINGH & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT : MARCH 14, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Mahendra Goyal for claimants-appellants. Shri Rakesh Bhargava,for New India Insurance Company. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred by the dependents of deceased Nanhe Khan for enhancement of the claim against judgment dated February 7, 1998, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs.1,58,200/- with interest was ordered to be paid. 2. On May 19, 1994 deceased Nanhe Khan along with others, was coming from Tonk to Jaipur in a jeep which met with an accident near Chaksu as the jeep was dashed by offending Truck DEG 453 driven by respondent No.1, Virendra Singh and sustaiend injuries resulting his death. 2 3. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not adopting multiplier of 15 as the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. Leaned counsel argued that the deceased was a mechanic as per the evidence adduced in the trial and his monthly income was Rs.3000/- but the learned trial court estimated the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/-. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the leaned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion in awarding the compensation on the basis evidence led by the two parties during the enquiry and the compensation awarded, is adequate and calls for no interference. 5. Having heard on rival contentions and perusal of the record, it is revealed that at the time of accident deceased Nanhe Khan was of 45 years as per the post mortem report (Ex 4) and as such the multiplier of 15 should have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. As regards the income of the deceased, it is revealed that the deceased was a mechanic and he was earning Rs.150 per 3 day as per the evidence of wife of the deceased Smt. Shakooran (AW 1) and Abdul Rahman (AW 3) who used to work with deceased and thus it appears that income assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Though no documentary evidence in support of his actual monthly income of the deceased was produced but on the basis of evidence adduced, the monthly income of the deceased can be said to be at least Rs.70/- per day amounting to Rs.2100/- per month as he was a skilled person (mechanic) and after deducting 1/3 amount for the expenses incurred by the deceased on himself, the amount awarded for computing the compensation can be found Rs.1400 x 12 x 15 = 2,52,000/-. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has failed to award any amount on account of the loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and a traditional sum of Rs.10,000/- is also required to be awarded. 6. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award of death claim of Nanhe Khan is enhanced from Rs.1,58,200/- to Rs.2,62,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 4 10.3.1998 with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within a period of three months from this order shall entail interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 10.3.1998. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification in the award as stated hereinabove. (Guman Singh),J. Chauhan/