// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3140/2008 Narbada Devi Wife of Late Shri Murari Lal and Others Versus N. Mohanraj Son of Nallusami and Others Date of Order ::: 05.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of one Murari Lal, who died in a motor-accident took place on 14th August, 2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 15th April, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapurcity, in MAC No.62/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,16,000/- (Rupees five lac sixteen thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. 20th July, 2006 till the date of realization, in their favour, as under:- // 2 // 1. Rs.4,79,880/- For loss of income 2. Rs.2,000/- For funeral expenses 3. Rs.4,000/- For deprivation of love and affection 4. Rs.5,000/- For loss of consortium 5. Rs.120/- For shoes and clothes 6. Rs.25,000/- For transportation charges The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased properly. It is contended that as per the Exhibit-13 and other documents relating to agriculture, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs.20,000/- per month, as mentioned in the claim application, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his income only as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is not proper, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award particularly the finding of the Tribunal in respect of quantum of // 3 // compensation. The appellants placed on the record Exhibit-13 with regard to income of the deceased wherein it is mentioned that he was a commission-agent but no specific amount has been mentioned in it so as to assess the monthly or yearly income of the deceased on the basis of this document. So far as agriculture income of the deceased is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur – {2003 (7) SCC 484} has held that the land possessed by the deceased will remain with the claimants as his legal heirs, therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source and attendant circumstances have to be considered. There is no other evidence available on the record to assess the income of the deceased. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence including Exhibit-13, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it, assessed the dependency amount as Rs.2,666/- per month. It is also clear that no income-tax return of the deceased has been placed on the record before the Tribunal. Had the deceased been earning Rs.20,000/- per month as claimed in the claim // 4 // application, he would have certainly been filing the income-tax return and in that circumstance the claimants would have certainly placed the same on the record. So far as the age of the deceased and the multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants also. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of findings of the learned Tribunal, I find that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to assessment of income of the deceased appears to be perfectly justified; even otherwise, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs.5,16,000/- with interest, awarded in the present case for the death of Murari Lal, cannot be said to be at lower side looking to his income and age. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another – (2003) 7 SCC 197 , has observed that the Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Thus, I find that the // 5 // amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//