{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.614/1997 RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. Vs. MAHAVEER & ORS. Date of order : 29.4.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Sanjay Nahar for Mr. Arun Bhansali and Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the appellants. Mr. G. Vaishnav, for the respondents. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other appeal being SBCMA No.740/2000 because both the appeals though arise out of two separate awards passed by two claim Tribunals, but arise out of one vehicular accident. 1. This is a misc. appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) against an award dated 22.07.1997, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Claim Case No.197/1996. 2. By impugned award, the Claims' Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants under Section { 2 } 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- to claimants for the death of one 'Ganpat Bhai' who died in vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded to them is in lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by Tribunal on fact/evidence is made out and if so to what extent? 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Nahar appearing on behalf of Mr. Arun Bhansali and Mr. Pradeep Shah for the appellants and Mr.G. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/driver, or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to burden my judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. { 3 } 3. It is a death case. On 3.2.96, Ganpat Bhai, aged around 41 years died in vehicular accident, while travelling in Bus bearing No.RNF-2489. He was Gold Smith by occupation. It is this event, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives (appellants herein) under Section 166 of the Act against the insured, insurer and driver of offending vehicle claiming compensation for his death. It was contested by non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Claims' Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. It was held that deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.24,000/- per year). The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 15 and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/-, which included the compensation towards conventional heads also. It is against this award, the claimants have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal for enhancement. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal in part and enhance the compensation to the extent indicated infra. 5. I have gone through the evidence of the parties. It is the case of claimants that deceased Ganpat was earning Rs.6,500/- per month as Gold Smith. However, the Tribunal has held that his monthly income was Rs.2,000/-. { 4 } In my opinion, taking into account the fact that Ganpat was a skilled worker and quite experience in his job (because his age was 41) and the fact that he was doing the job of Gold Smith, which is a skilled job, it is just and proper to enhance his monthly salary / income from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/-. In other words, I hold that deceased Ganpat was earning Rs.2,500/- per month from his occupation. 6. In this way, his yearly income comes to Rs.30,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd, I get Rs.20,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 15 as per Schedule, I get Rs.20,000 x 15 = Rs.3,00,000/-. To this, I add by awarding in lump sum towards conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and estate a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In this way, the claimants are now entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.3,25,000/-. 7. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,25,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Ganpat. 8. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same { 5 } is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out and then award reasonable compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. I have gone through these authorities. In my opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation to the extent necessary. In this case, I have done this. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents however vehemently contended that any increase in the compensation by this Court in this appeal would be a bonanza to claimants and hence it should not be done. I do not agree to this submission because on the facts found proved if the claimants are held entitled to get reasonable and lawful compensation, then in such event, it should be granted to them. It does not in my view call a “bonanza” to claimants but a just compensation awarded to them. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. { 6 } Counsel fees Rs.1500/-, if certified. 12. This takes me to another appeal i.e. SBCMA No.740/2000. This is also a case of death arising out of same accident, out of which aforementioned SMCMA No.614/97 arise. One Jay Narayan, aged around 40 years and engaged in business of Kirana shop died in the accident giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for his death. It was contested by non- applicants. The Tribunal by impugned award dt. 22.7.97 passed in claim case No.197/96 (MACT, Bikaner) held that deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 12 and accordingly determined the compensation by awarding Rs.2,97,000/-. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal and while modifying the impugned award, enhance the compensation to the extent indicated infra. 14. I have gone through the evidence. Having gone through the same, I am of the view that the only area where I can interfere in the impugned award is that of application of multiplier and award under conventional { 7 } heads. Since the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 12, but in my view, it should have been 15 because as per Schedule, the 15 is the appropriate one for the age of 40. So far as finding relating to monthly income is concerned, it does not call for any interference. It is properly recorded. 15. In this view of the matter, I get a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- yearly. Deducting 1/3rd, I get Rs.2000/-x 12 x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-. To this, I consider it just and proper to add by awarding a total sum of Rs.25,000/- in lump sum towards conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and estate etc. as per Schedule. This makes a total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.3,85,000/- by way of compensation. 16. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,85,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Jay Narayan. 17. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence { 8 } adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out and then award reasonable compensation. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. I have gone through these authorities. In my opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation to the extent necessary. In this case, I have done this. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents however vehemently contended that any increase in the compensation by this Court in this appeal would be a bonanza to claimants and hence it should not be done. I do not agree to this submission because on the facts found proved if the claimants are held entitled to get reasonable and lawful compensation, then in such event, it should be granted to them. It does not in my view call a “bonanza” to claimants but a just compensation awarded to them. 20. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. { 9 } Counsel fees Rs.1500/-, if certified. (A.M.SAPRE ),J. /Anil/