1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 758 of 1997 RATAN LAL & ORS V/S PABUDAN & ORS Dr. Mrs. PRAMILA ACHARYA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MANOJ BISSA for Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 16.11.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, to the tune of Rs.82,000/- on account of death of 17 years boy, to the claimants. Claimants are the parents and siblings. Since the aspect of accident, negligence and age etc. are not in dispute, I need not go into that. According to the claim, it was alleged that the father of the deceased, being Ratan Lal, is carrying on business, while the deceased was a student, but in spare time, he used to co-operate in the father's business, and was thus, earning Rs.2000/- per month. This has been pleaded in para 5 of the claim petition. This obviously has been denied for want of knowledge. Then coming to the evidence, the only evidence led in this regard comprises of the oral statement of the father of the deceased, who too has only deposed, that the deceased was intelligent in education, was healthy, was having no ailment, and apart from pursuing studies, he used to come 2 to him in the morning and evening, and was earning Rs.2000- 2500/- per month, and if he were to survive, he would have earned Rs.15 to 20 lacks. This is the entire evidence from the side of the claimant. Of course, there is no effective cross- examination even on this aspect. However, in cross, he has admitted, that the deceased had just passed 9th class, and was a student. The learned Tribunal has found, that Ratan Lal has not disclosed, as to what business he was carrying on, and what was the total income of Ratan Lal, as to whether he was at all paying income tax or not, no books of accounts has been produced, no other material has been produced to show the income of Ratan Lal. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed, that simply by cooperating with him in the morning and evening, the deceased was earning Rs.2000-2500/- per month. However it was believed, that he must have been cooperating for sometime, and that must have been resulting into the income of father being increased by Rs.600/- per month. Then out of that, deducting 1/3rd personal expenditure, and employing multiplier of 15, a compensation of Rs.82,000/- has been awarded. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was contended, that there is no cross-examination to the statement of Ratan Lal, and there is no evidence led in rebuttal either. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal was bound to accept the statement, and the loss of dependency was required to be assessed on that basis. In the alternative, learned counsel referred to and relied upon an unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 15.5.2009 in R.K. Malik & Anr. Vs. Kiran 3 Pal & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No.3608/09. Learned counsel for the insurer on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment, and submitted, that in Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had found the background, and academic potentials of the deceased, and had given the findings; while in the present case, no material has been placed on record in that regard. Then it was also submitted, that Hon'ble the Supreme Court had awarded the rate of interest at 6% only, and that too from the date of award, while in the present case, interest has been awarded from the date of filing of the clam petition, and that too @ 12% per annum. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record, and have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court also. In my view, the learned Tribunal was right in holding, that apart from the bald statement of Ratan Lal nothing has been placed on record to lend assurance to the word of mouth deposed by Ratan Lal. May be that the catena of judgments, requires the Tribunal to assess the compensation, which should be just compensation, but then, that doesn't mean that claimants are altogether absolved from the responsibility of placing necessary inputs on record. The hazards of ad-hoc determination of compensation, in absence of necessary inputs, can better be comprehended than described. Be that as it may. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment has referred to the Second Schedule, and highlighted the 4 principles about the way in which compensation, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, should be assessed, in case of non-earning deceased children. I have gone through those principles, and find, that while laying down the principles, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did consider the inputs available on record, while this Court is at a loss, as no inputs have been placed on record. This Court is only left to guess and conjecture, as to what was the total income of Ratan Lal, so as to guess, that the deceased was earning, or enhancing the income of his father, by any amount more than Rs.600/- per month, as assessed by the learned Tribunal. But then comprehending the spirit expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, and the ad-hoc increase in the compensation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I think it appropriate, that without applying any formula, the compensation assessed at Rs.82,000/-, should be increased to Rs.1,50,000/-, all told. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by learned Tribunal is modified, in the manner, that the compensation awarded, being Rs.82,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. All other stipulations are maintained. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/