1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1808/2000 MST.GEETA & ORS. VS. JADISH CHAND & ORS. S.B.Civil Misc. Appeals under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T Act, 1988 against the Award dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T. Dausa, in MAC No. 416/99 ( Mst. Geeta & ors. vs. Jagdish Chand & others.) by which a sum of Rs.8,91,000/- was awarded to the claimants. DATE OF JUDGMENT :- APRIL, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI. Mr.L.L.Gupta,counsel for the appellants. Mr.Virendra Agarwal, for respondents. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Judge, MACT, Dausa , in MAC No. 416/99 (Mst.Geeta & ors vs Jagdish Chand & others)by which learned Tribunal awarded a claim of Rs.8,91,000/- . 2 Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 15/16 April 1999, deceased Shri Ram was going on motor cycle with Ishwar Lal. Suddenly, respondent No.1, while driving his own truck GJ 8T-8455 rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle and caused injuries to Shri Ram and Ishwar Lal. Shriram's treatment continued up to 26th April 1999 and on that day he died on account of injuries suffered in accident. This truck was insured by respondent No.2. Appellants, who are wife, sons and parents of deceased claimed compensation. Respondents did not appear before Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.8,91,000/- against which this appeal has been filed. None appeared for respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted 3 that learned Tribunal committed error in deducting more than 1/3rd from deceased's income for assessing compensation and has further submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding medical expenses so appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for the respondent submitted that already excessive amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal so appeal may be dismissed. A.W.1 Ramjilal, who is father of deceased Shri Ram, has stated that deceased was accountant in Panchayat Samiti, Sanchore, and he used to get Rs.7,300/- per month. He further stated that treatment of deceased continued from 16.4.99 to 26.7.99. He also exhibited Injury Report, X-Ray Report, Post Morten Report, Salary Certificate and other medical bills. As per appointment order Ex-25, deceased Shri Ram's date of birth is 8.7.65 , thus, it become clear that at the time of accident and death, deceased was near about 34 years old. As per Salary Certificate Ex-24, deceased's salary was Rs.6,996/- per month. Learned 4 Tribunal has deducted Rs.3000/- on account of expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, whereas only 1/3rd of the income should have been deducted for assessing dependency as provided in Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on 2008 (2) TAC 815 (SC) Bilkish vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another, in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that only 1/3rd amount should be deducted from the deceased's income. Thus, it becomes clear that learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting Rs.3000/- and assessing dependency at Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that future prospects should have been considered while assessing dependency. He also placed reliance on A.I.R. 1996 SC 1274 Smt.Sarla Dixit vs Balwant Yadav, in which income at the time of accident was increased by 50% for assessing dependency. In that case deceased was 27 years old and multiplier of 15 was applied whereas as per Schedule, 5 multiplier of 18 could have been applied. In the present case, deceased was 34 years old and Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 as provided in Second Schedule. Thus, it becomes clear that if multiplier of Second Schedule is to be applied, future prospects should not be considered and aforesaid judgment (supra) does not help to the appellants. In the aforesaid case, deceased was captain in military service and was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of Major at the time of his death and looking to the brilliant academic record and performance of the deceased, his salary was increased to 50% for assessing compensation, whereas in the present case deceased was only Junior Accountant, who was appointed just before four years of accident and multiplier of 17 was applied as per Schedule. He has also placed reliance on some other judgments in which it was held that future prospects in career of deceased should be considered while awarding compensation. I am of the view that if multiplier is to be applied as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, normally, future prospects should not be considered unless there are exceptional circumstances. 6 Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that medical expenses incurred by the deceased have not been awarded. A.W.1 Ramji Lal has exhibited many medical bills and has stated that he incurred expenditure of near about Rs.3,00,000/- in treatment. Deceased survived for near about three months after accident and he has produced bills of near about Rs.50,000/-. As per Second Schedule, Medical Expenses incurred before death can be allowed only up to Rs.15,000/- but looking to the period of treatment, medical bills produced by the appellants should have been allowed by the Tribunal. Thus, appellants are entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- in the head of medical expenses, if they have not received this amount from the employer. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- to appellant No.1 on account of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to each other respondents on account of love and affection whereas as per Second Schedule, only Rs.9,500/- in the head of General Damages could have 7 been awarded. In this case, even appellant No.1 has not appeared in evidence, in such circumstances, it become clear that instead of Rs.9,500/-,learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on 2008 (1) TAC 871 (SC) Mohinder Kaur vs Heera Nand Sindhi , in which Hon'ble Apex Court allowed interest from the date of filing of petition on the awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium. This amount was awarded by High Court. In this case (supra), question of awarding amount for loss of consortium was not under challenge and Hon'ble Apex Court only decided question of interest. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that appellants were entitled to get only Rs.9,500/- in the head of General Damages against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the light of above discussions, appellants are entitled to get Rs.4660 x 12 x 17 = 9,50,640/- + Rs.50,000/- + 9,500/- = 10,10,140/- instead of Rs.8,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, 8 this appeal is party allowed and the award dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T. Dausa, is modified to the extent that the appellants will be entitled to get Rs.10,10,140/- instead of Rs.8,91,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. CKThanvi