1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.821/2000 (Ram Prasad Vs. Babu Lal and ors.) 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1615/2001 (Smt.Kanta and ors. Vs. Babu Lal and ors.) Date of Judgment : 14-05-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.L.L.Gupta,for the appellants. Mr.Rishipal Agrawal & Mr.Tripurari Sharma, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated 23.12.99 whereby a sum of Rs.69513/-(in claim case no.4/99) and Rs.1,90,080/-(in claim case no.1/99) was awarded by way of compensation. CMA NO.821/2000 (CLAIM CASE NO. 4/99) 3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured-appellant sustained 2 fracture of tibia and fibula on lower right leg resulting into 20% disability causing 1/2” shortening of leg. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to awarded adequate compensation as the compensation has been awarded by way of lump sum and the same deserves to be awarded by taking second schedule to the M.V.Act to be the guidelines. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation for immobilization for minimum period of six months to the injured- appellant during treatment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- by way of lump sum as against the disability caused in 3 the accident. The amount of compensation deserves to be awarded by taking second schedule to be the guidelines. The injured was 22 years of age and he was a daily wager and, as such, his income can be assessed to be Rs.70/- per day which is equivalent to that of a skilled labour. The compensation deserves to be computed by adopting multiplier of 17 commensurating with the percentage of disability. That apart, injured deserves to be compensated for six months' period of immobilization, amounting to RS.12,600/- as he has sustained extensive injuries resulting into shortening of 1/2” of right leg. Thus the amount can be computed as under: 70x30x12x17(multiplier)x20% (disability)= 85,680-40,000(already awarded)=45,680/-+ 12,600(compensation for immobilization for a period of six months)=58,280/- (to be additionally awarded) 7. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.58,280/- by way of additional enhanced 4 compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 11.4.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. CMA NO.821/2000 (CLAIM CASE NO. 4/99) 8. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this appeal, death claim was filed by the appellant-claimants on account of death of deceased Meghraj, aged 27 years caused in the accident. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation and only sum of Rs.1,90,080/- has been awarded for the loss of dependency taking the daily income of the deceased to be Rs.44/- per day and that is on lower side and daily earning of deceased deserves to be assessed on the basis that deceased was engaged as Salesman in the company drawing Rs.2500/- per month. That apart, he was earning RS.3000/- per month 5 from the agricultural operation. It is also submitted that no amount has been awarded for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love & affection to the children and parents. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 11. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side and the same deserves to be assessed @ Rs.70/- per day equivalent to that of a skilled labour and after deducting 1/3 from his own expenses, the amount deserves to be computed. That apart, widow deserves to be awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and each of the child and parents, total four in number, also deserve to be awarded Rs.5000/- each for loss of love and 6 affection, amounting to Rs.20,000/-. Thus the amount can be computed as under: 70x30=2100-1/3rd (as against own expenses) =1400x12x18(multiplier)=3,02,400-1,90,080 (already awarded)=1,12,320+35,000(for loss of consortium & loss of love & affection) =47,320/- (to be additionally awarded) 12. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.47,320/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 23.3.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.21-22