1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T (1) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 535 of 1997 R S R T C & ANR V/S SMT. KAILASH DEVI & ORS (2) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 249 of 1997 SMT. KAILASH DEVI & ORS V/S RATAN LAL & ANR Date of Judgment : 3.9.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. Mr. MP GOSWAMI for Mr. ANIL BACHHAWAT, for the corporation Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the respondent-claimants These are two cross appeals, one by the owner- corporation, and other by the claimants, have been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 17.1.1997, passed in Claim Case No.255/94, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,91,200/-, alongwith interest @ 12%, and Rs.300/- costs. The necessary facts are, that on 20.10.1993, deceased Dulichand was traveling in the corporation's bus, being RJ14/P-2576, to Chittor, when the bus reached near Gulabpura, it dashed against a truck, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. He was carried to hospital at Ajmer, where-from he was referred to Jaipur, and he died on 26.10.1993. Thus he was under treatment for 2 6 days. The deceased was claimed to be 35 years of age, and earning Rs.4276.20 per month, being employed as Machine Attendant in Birla Cement Works, Chittor. Since the factum of accident, and finding about negligence is not in question, in either of the appeals, and since both the appeals are confined to the question of quantum of compensation only, I need not go into the other aspects of the matter. The learned Tribunal has found, that the deceased was 40 years of age, and for that purpose, considered the fact, that Kailashi Devi, the wife of the deceased, also claimed his age to be 35 years at the time of accident, and in the post mortem report, the age is shown to be 40 years, and there being no other evidence, the age of the deceased was taken to be 40 years. Then assessing income, it has been found, that the net income of the deceased was Rs.2373.90, and after making deduction for personal expenditure of Rs.573/-, the dependency has been assessed at Rs.1800/- per month, and applying the multiplier of 7, a compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- has been assessed. Then a total sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for mental pain, agony and loss of consortium etc. The claim for medical expenditure, journey, carrying of the dead-body, and performance of last rites etc., was given up by the claimants. Thus, the above award has been passed. Arguing the appeal by the corporation, it is 3 contended, that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.40,000/-, as awarded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted, that the multiplier employed is grossly inadequate, even in view of the trend of recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. I have considered the submissions. In my view, so far as the award of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, may be, that the expression used by the learned trial Court, about the heads, on which the amount was awarded, may not be very happily worded, but then, for the mental pain, agony and loss of consortium, the claimants being wife and three minor children, the amount cannot be said to be either not awardable, or excessive. Thus, the appeal of the corporation has no force and is dismissed. Coming to the question of multiplier, I may consider the recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jashuben & Ors., reported in JT 2008(2) SC 415, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Shanti Pathak & Ors., reported in JT 2007(9) SC 318, where in cases of the deceased being 35 years of age, Hon'ble the Supreme Court interfered with the multiplier, and employed a multiplier of 13. Here the deceased being 40 years of age, in my view, appropriate multiplier to be employed should be 12, instead of 7. Accordingly, the amount awarded is required to be enhanced. 4 As a result of the above discussion, appeal No.535 fails, while appeal No.249 is allowed, and the amount of compensation of Rs.1,51,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs.2,52,000/-. Rest of the award, and its terms, are maintained. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. (N.P.GUPTA),J. /tarun/