1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.575/1999 Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors. V/s Shyopal alias Shiv Dayal & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 3rd December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Intzar Ali on behalf of Shri Mahendra Goyal, for the appellants. Shri Vipul Jaiman on behalf of Shri S.S. Sunda), Shri Vinod Tyagi), for respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of Bal Kishan who died in motor accident took place on 10.3.1996 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 11.12.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.95/96 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 24.4.1996, in their favour as under :- Rs.1,56,000/- for loss of income, 2 Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.12,000/- for loss of consortium and deprivation of love & affection. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the annual income of the deceased properly. It is contended that from the statement of AW 1 Vimla Devi and AW 2 Ramswaroop, it was clear that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as driver in Saudi Arbia. But the learned Tribunal wrongly disbelieved their testimony and wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,600/- per annum which is not proper. He submits that the income of deceased ought to have been treated as Rs.9000/- p.a. and the amount of compensation should have been allowed accordingly. He further contended that even if there was no documentary evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased, at least the minimum wage i.e. Rs,.70/- per day or Rs.2100/- per month or Rs.16,800/- per annum, should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income. He further contended that the amount of 3 compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium and deprivation of love & affection, is also not adequate and the same may also be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and record of the the learned Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197, has held that the Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be “just” compensation. The Apex Court has further held that every mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the age of the deceased and his dependents who are 4 wife and three children, I am of the view that he amount of compensation awarded in the present case by Tribunal, is not proper and it is liable to be enhanced. So far as the monthly income of the deceased as stated by AW 1 Vimla Devi and AW 2 Ramswaroop is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants is fair enough in admitting that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the monthly income of deceased as Rs.9,000/-. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in not accepting the oral evidence about the monthly income of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was also not paying income tax on his income nor any return thereof nor any other proof, certificate by any company of Saudi Arabia, has been placed on record. However, from his driving licence, it is clear that he was driver. The learned Tribunal has not given any basis for assessing the annual income as Rs.15,600/- per year. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that at least the minimum wage i.e. Rs.70/- per day should be taken into consideration, appears to be perfectly justified and accordingly, I assess the income of the deceased as Rs.70/- 5 per day or Rs.2100/- per month. One third amount is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased, therefore, the dependency amount comes to Rs.16,800/- per annum. As per the age of deceased, the multiplier of 15 was rightly applied by the Tribunal and the same is applied here and as such, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (16,800 x 15). The Tribunal also committed an illegality in not awarding proper compensation under the head of loss of consortium and deprivation of love & affection. The appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium to wife, Rs.15,000/- for deprivation of love & affection to three children, Rs.3,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses, is also awarded. Therefore, the total amount of compensation in the present case, comes to Rs.2,52,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- + 3000/- = 2,85,000/- In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs.2,85,000/_ (Two Lacs Eighty Five Thousand only). The 6 enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application till the date of its realization. No order as to costs. Four weeks time, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is allowed to deposit the amount. The enhanced amount under the head of loss of income with interest shall be deposited in the name of appellant NO.1 Smt. Vimla Devi Widow of Bal Kishan alias Balchand in any nationalized bank in Fixed Deposit receipt for a period of 5 years with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, on monthly or quarterly basis. The registry is directed to send back the record of the Tribunal immediately. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/