SBCMA NO.485/1998 –SMT. DHELI AND ORS. V/S SHAMBHU AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.3.12.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.485/1998 Smt. Dheli and ors. Versus Shambhu and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Rajesh Panwar, for the appellants Mr.R.K. Mehta, for the respondent – Insurance Company DATE OF JUDGMENT : 3rd December, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award td.1.6.1998 passed by the MACT, Jaisalmer deciding claim Case No.43/1996. 3. In an accident which took place on 26.10.1996 at around 7 p.m., the deceased Himta Ram and his nephew Padma Ram, who are labourers were going from their agricultural field to home, when they were hit by offending vehicle Mini-bus No.RJ-15-P/117 insured with the respondent No.3 the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and SBCMA NO.485/1998 –SMT. DHELI AND ORS. V/S SHAMBHU AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.3.12.2009 2/3 as a result of said hitting, the deceased Himta Ram aged 50 years lost his life and A.W.2 Padma Ram saved his life by running faster and crossing the road. The learned Tribunal while giving findings of accident found the contributory negligence of the deceased Himta Ram also, thus, upon determining the compensation of Rs.2,19,000/-, passed award only to the extent of 50% i.e. Rs.1,09,500/- for the said death. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. R.K. Mehta submits that the findings of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% by the deceased Himta Ram is just and proper because the accident took place on immediately middle of the straight road and therefore, the deceased Himta Ram cannot be said to have taken enough care and he could also save his life by running faster as his nephew A.W.2 Padma Ram did. He also submitted that the compensation awarded to the extent of Rs.1,09,500/- is also just and proper as the deceased was merely a labourer and his income has been determined at Rs.2,000/- per month and determining the contribution to the family at Rs.1400/- and applying multiplier of 10, the Tribunal has arrived at compensation of Rs.2,19,000/-, which was reduced to 1,09,500/- on account of aforesaid contributory negligence. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that though the findings of contributory negligence SBCMA NO.485/1998 –SMT. DHELI AND ORS. V/S SHAMBHU AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.3.12.2009 3/3 which are findings of fact based on relevant evidence are not required to be disturbed by this Court. A lump sum increase of Rs.50,000/- can be granted because the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10 in the present case, whereas Schedule II to the Act prescribes multiplier of 13 between the age of 45 years to 50 years. The learned Tribunal has estimated net contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.1400/- per month and thus, the net enhancement would come to Rs.1400 x 12 x 3 = Rs.50,400/-. On account of aforesaid contributory negligence of 50%, the said net enhancement would come to Rs.25,200/-. However, adding the compensation under the misc. heads like funeral expenses, loss of love and affection etc., the net enhancement is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the respondent – Insurance Company would pay net enhancement of Rs.50,000/- awarded by this Court without any interest to the claimants by way of Account Payee cheque within a period of 3 months from today. 7. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.23 Ss/-