1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 905/2007 (Choth Mal & ors. Vs. Mansoor Khan & ors.) Date of Order :: 19th February 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Rajesh Parihar for Mr.Suresh Shrimali for the appellants By way of this appeal, the claimants seek enhancement over the amount of Rs.3,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation on account of vehicular accident death of Smt.Laxmi, about 30 years of age, wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellants Nos.2 to 4. For quantification of compensation, the Tribunal has referred to the assertion of the claimant Chothmal that his wife was maintaining children, looking after household and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month in tailoring and knitting job. The Tribunal has also referred to the statement of claimant-husband that his wife had not obtained any diploma in tailoring nor any accounts were maintained for her income nor any tax was paid. For want of cogent and reliable evidence about the earnings of deceased, the Tribunal has put an estimate on her monthly income at Rs.1,960/- on the basis 2 of wages of Rs.70/- per day for 28 days; and, thus, taking her annual income at Rs.23,520/- and then, deducting one-third on personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 18, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.2,82,240/-; and while allowing Rs.20,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss, Rs.1,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.1,000/- towards transportation, has assessed total loss at Rs.3,05,240/-; and with reference to the costs of litigation has allowed total compensation in the sum of Rs.3,06,000/- and has also allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Assailing the award aforesaid as being low and inadequate, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in view of the deceased being in 30 years of age and maintaining the entire household and for the loss suffered by her husband and children for her untimely death due to vehicular accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken loss of contribution minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Sobhag Mal Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & others: I (2006) ACC 468 and submitted that following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, II (2001) ACC 316, this Court has allowed compensation in the sum of Rs.6,62,000/- in relation to the 3 victim lady in the age group of 30-35 years and such quantum ought to be considered for awarding compensation in the present case too. The submissions do not merit acceptance. The claimants in the present case came out with an assertion of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and suggested her being engaged in tailoring and knitting job but failed to corroborate their submissions by any cogent evidence. In the fact situation of the present case and for the suggestions made by the claimants, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in putting an estimate on the income of the deceased; and the estimate so put, of annual income at Rs.23,520/-, cannot be said to be wholly inadequate. Then, the Tribunal has proceeded to apply maximum side multiplier of 18 to assess pecuniary loss at Rs.2,82,240/-. The Tribunal has allowed other components of loss also on reasonable, even if moderate, scale. The award in question cannot be said to be too low or grossly insufficient so as to warrant interference in appeal. The decision in Sobhag Mal Jain's case (supra) carries the fundamental distinction of the basis of claiming, and the reasons for awarding, compensation. In the said case, by way of writ petition it was submitted before this Court 4 that the pregnant wife of the petitioner was admitted to the Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur and gave birth to twins but she died for excessive bleeding after delivery that could not be controlled for the negligence attributable to the doctors. The petitioner lodged an FIR but the same ended in negative final report. The Magistrate concerned held that for taking cognizance against the doctor accused of negligence, prior sanction of the State Government was necessary. When the Government refused the sanction, the matter was taken up in writ petition and a Division Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition directed the State Government to pass fresh speaking order after hearing the parties. The State Government, then, by a detailed speaking order refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the doctors. The petitioner served a notice to the Government to reconsider the matter and thereafter submitted the writ petition for awarding compensation and for prosecution of the doctors. In this background, the Court considered the question of medical negligence and held the doctors negligent on the basis of a report of Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur who had found the doctors dilatory in attending on the wife of the petitioner in an inquiry conducted earlier in the matter; and held the State Government vicariously liable for the negligent act of the doctors concerned. Thereafter, this Court observed 5 that the jurisdiction of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injuries suffered due to medical negligence is founded in principle that ''an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law.''. This Court held that the State was liable to compensate for the loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary and negligent behaviour of its employees. Then, following the principles in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered awarding of compensation to the victims of fire accident at the premises of Tata Iron and Steel Company where 60 persons died and taking into consideration multifarious services rendered by house-wife for managing the entire family, the value of services were estimated at Rs. 3 thousand per month, this court calculated compensation at Rs. 6.62 lacs with application of annual multiplier of 17 and with addition of a further conventional amount of Rs. 50 thousand; and the State Government was left free to recover the same from the negligent doctors. The aforesaid decision in Sobhag Mal Jain's case for the fundamental difference of the basis, cause and purpose of awarding compensation rules out its applicability to a vehicular accident claim case. 6 The award in question has been made by the Tribunal with application of relevant principles for quantification of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and does not suffer from any such error of law or facts that requires interference in appeal; nor the quantum of compensation awarded can be said to be too low or grossly inadequate than that of just compensation admissible on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.