1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4793/2008 Smt. Chhabi & Ors. V/s Hakumudin @ Hakam & Ors. AND SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4794/2008 Wazir Mohd. & Ors. V/s Hakumudin @ Hakam & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 3rd December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Arti Sharma on behalf of Shri Ashvin Garg, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The above referred both the appeals on behalf of the claimant-appellants are directed against the common award and in respect of the same accident, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The claimants-appellants have preferred these two appeals for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of the death of Ali Mohammad and his wife Naseem, who died in motor accident took place on 3.6.2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of 2 Rs.3,03,800/- in Claim Case No.300/2005 relating to the death of Ali Mohammad and a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- in Claim Case No.301/2005 relating to the death of Naseem, with interest in both cases at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realisation, in their favour. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are two-fold. The first is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of deceased Ali Mohammad properly and the second is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in determining the age of the deceased in both the cases, and, in applying the multiplier of 16 only in place of 17 in both the cases. It is contended that deceased Ali Mohammad, according to the statement of AW-1 Chhabi, the mother of deceased, was earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his income as per minimum wage i.e. Rs.70/- per day i.e. Rs.2100/- per month, which is not proper. It is further contended that as per postmortem report of deceased Ali Mohammad, he was only 35 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied in place of 16, as applied by 3 the Tribunal. It is also contended that the age of deceased Naseem was not mentioned in her postmortem report (Ex.-17) and she being wife of deceased Ali Mohammad was younger to him, the Tribunal committed an illegality in not applying the multiplier of 17 in place of 16. Therefore, the amount of compensation in both the cases, may be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal. So far as the Claim Case No.300/05 in respect of deceased Ali Mohammad is concerned, the claimants pleaded that his monthly income was Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- but no document on record has been placed in respect of his income. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants also during the course of arguments. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as per minimum wage i.e. Rs.70/- per day or Rs.2100/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it, for personal expenses, assessed the dependency of Rs.1400/- per month and in view of his age, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,800/- 4 towards the loss of income. Rs.30,000/- has further been awarded for deprivation of love & affection to mother and children @ Rs.10,000/- each, Rs.5,000/- has further been awarded for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.3,03,800/-. So far as the multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has mentioned that his age in postmortem report has been mentioned as 35 years but claimants have placed on record a copy of the Ration- card of the year 2001 wherein the age of deceased Ali Mohammand has been mentioned as 35 years, therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, which is applicable in respect of victim who is above 35 years but not exceeding 40 years. The Ration-card filed by the appellants is an admitted document of the appellants and according to it, the age of Ali Mohammad on the date of accident comes to 39 years and in these circumstances, the multiplier of 16 may be applied. After considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.2100/- per month in the absence of 5 documentary evidence with regard to his income and rightly applied the multiplier of 16 as per age of the deceased mentioned in Ration- card of the year 2001. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in both the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as the Claim Case No.301/2005 relating to deceased Naseem is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 Chhabi and other evidence available on record and thereafter recorded a finding that she was non-earning member and as per Second Schedule, her annual income was determined as Rs.15,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the dependency amount as Rs.10,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 16. So far the age of the deceased is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in Rational-card of the year 2001 filed by the appellants, the age of deceased Naseem was mentioned as 33 years. The incident took place in the year 2005, therefore, she was above 37 years of age and the multiplier of 16 is applicable in respect of the age of victim above 35 years and not exceeding 40 years. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the 6 finding of the learned Tribunal, I find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the income of the deceased as non- earning member and rightly applied the multiplier of 16 in the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons mentioned above and no interference in the same is called for. It is also relevant to mention that deceased persons were husband and wife and compensation awarded in both the cases will be received by their legal heirs who are appellants in both the appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197 has held that Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be “just” compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that every mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. After considering the age and income of the deceased, I am of the view that the 7 amount of compensation awarded in both the cases by the Tribunal, appears to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference with the same, is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in both the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Since two appeals have been decided by this order, therefore, the registry is directed to place on record a copy of this order in connected appeal. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/