IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S. B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 571/99 SMT. LICHHMI DEVI & OTHERS. v R.S.R.T.C. & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT : March 19, 2008. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Rakesh Chandel for the appellants. Mr. Pritam Bijlani, for the Insurance Company. Ms. Shruti Dixit for RSRTC. By Court: The appellants have challenged the award dated 18.2.98 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs. 1,62,800/- alongwith an interest of 12% per annum for the death of Mool Chand. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.3.1990 around 7.00 a.m. while Mool Chand was going in a truck, bearing Registration No. GRN 5533, for selling sheeps and goats, a bus, bearing Registration No. RNP 3371, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the truck. Consequently, Mool Chand expired. Since the appellants had lost their sole bread earner, they filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Since there were other persons who were equally injured in the said accident, other claim petitions were also filed. Vide award dated 18.2.98 all the claim petitions were decided by a common award. Hence this appeal for enhancement. Mr. Rakesh Chandel, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions before this court : firstly that according to the postmortem report the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was shown as 40 years. According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicle Act ('the Act', for short) while assessing the loss of dependency a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. However, the learned Tribunal has applied only a multiplier of 11. Therefore, the very basis for calculating the loss of dependency is misplaced. Secondly, despite the fact that the appellant No.1 has lost her husband and appellant Nos. 3 to 7 have lost their father, merely Rs. 10,000/- have been paid under the category of “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection”. The said amount according to the learned counsel is too meagre to be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Pritam Bijlani, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 – the Insurance Company, has contended that according to the testimony of appellant No.1, Smt. Lichhmi Devi in the year 1992 she was 46 years old and according to her statement her husband was 3 years older than her. Since the accident had taken place in the year 1990, her husband, thus, would have been 47 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore, the deceased cannot be taken to be 40 years old at the time of the accident. Moreover, according to he learned counsel the learned Tribunal had rightly relied on the unit system in order to reach a multiplier of 11. Therefore, he has supported the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the impugned award. Although the claimants in their claim petition and the postmortem report state the age of the deceased to be 40 years at the time of the accident, but nonetheless Smt. Lichhmi Devi, the appellant No.1 in her testimony claims that she was 46 years old in 1992 and her husband was 3 years older than her. Thus, in 1990 the deceased was undoubtedly 47 years old. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the age of the deceased should be taken as 47 years cannot be faulted. However, as the Second Schedule was treated as a guideline prescribed by the Legislature, this court fails to understand the reason why the unit system was adopted by the learned Tribunal. According to the Second Schedule, in case the age of the deceased is between 45-50 years, then a multiplier of 13 should be adopted. Therefore, taking cue from the Second Schedule this court has no hesitation in applying the multiplier of 13. Thus while calculating the loss of dependency the award needs to be modified as under :- 13,800/- x 13 = Rs. 1,79,400/- As far as quantum for “loss of consortium” and for “loss of love and affection” is concerned, it is a matter solely within the discretion of the learned Tribunal. This court is not inclined to interfere with the said compensation unless it is proved that the compensation is shockingly disproportionate to the agony and the pain suffered by the claimants. In the present case there is no such evidence available on the record. Therefore, while partly allowing this appeal, the impugned award dated 18.2.98 stands modified to the limited extend as under:- Loss of Dependency : 13,800 x 13 = Rs. 1,79,400 The rest of the award is confirmed. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the enhanced amount is paid to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. MRG.