1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 123 of 1998 SUA DEVI & ANR V/S AMARA RAM & ORS Mr. SUKESH BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 16.11.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal the claimant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer, vide award dated 8.5.97, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1 Lac, on account of death of Raju Singh, the son of appellant Sua Devi. Since the aspect of accident, negligence and age etc. are not in dispute, I need not go into that. To decide the question of quantum, necessary facts are, that the claim was filed by Sua Devi and his son, Raghuveer Singh; but then Raghuveer Singh has not been found to be dependent. According to the claim, the deceased was working as a driver on the truck, and was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- per month, as pleaded in para 26(kha) of the claim petition. Then while in the witness-box also Sua Devi A.W.1 has deposed, that his son was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- per month. Though in cross-examination she has stated that she was not maintaining any account of it. Strangely the employer has come-forward to depose a much higher income of the deceased, which obviously cannot be believed. 2 The learned Tribunal after discussing this evidence has proceeded to hold, that according to the claim petition, the age of Sua Devi claimant was 65 years, and therefore, the compensation has to be determined on the basis of the age of the claimant, instead of age of the deceased, and therefore, considering the remaining life of the claimant, a consolidated amount of Rs.1 Lac has been awarded. In my view, the approach of the learned Tribunal, so far as the requirement of assessing the compensation in such cases on the basis of age of claimant is concerned, is correct, but then, the assessment of compensation cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, no finding has been given about income, dependency, nor any multiplier has been chosen to be applied. In my view, on the face of the evidence of P.W.3, it would not be unsafe to believe, that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month, by working as a driver on a truck, at the time of the accident. Then out of that, after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenditure, the dependency comes to Rs.2000/- per month, and looking to the age of the claimant, as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant, appropriate multiplier of 5 should be employed. Accordingly, the compensation payable comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Then another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of expectation of life, love and affection etc. on account of death of a young son. Thus, the compensation awarded is required to be and is enhanced from Rs.1 Lac to 3 Rs.1,30,000/-. Other stipulations of the award are maintained. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed as above. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/