JUDGMENT
A.M. Sapre and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 6.8.2004, passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narsinghgarh in Claim Case No. 79 of 2003. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,34,500 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Samunder Singh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So, the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out and if so to what extent?
2. Heard Mr. Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for appellants and Mr. R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred? Who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle? It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants’ favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.
4. As observed supra it is a death case. One Samunder Singh, aged around 35 years and teacher by occupation met with a motor accident on 8.8.2003 and died giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives seeking compensation for his death out of which this appeal arises. The matter was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition. It awarded a sum of Rs. 2,34,500 towards compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal held that deceased’s yearly income is Rs. 30,000 and deducting 1/3rd from the total income, took Rs. 20,000 by way of dependency and applying the multiplier of 11 awarded Rs. 2,20,000. In addition an amount of Rs. 8,500 was awarded under conventional heads making a total of Rs. 2,34,500. It is this determination which is sought to be impugned in this appeal by the claimants, inter alia, contending that it should be enhanced reasonably.
5. So the question arise in this appeal is, whether any case for further enhancement is made out and if so to what extent?
6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. The documentary evidence tendered by the claimants, i.e., Exh. P 15 on the question of income of deceased was accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly it was held that deceased’s monthly income was Rs. 2,500. We concur with this finding as the same does not call for any interference. The only area where we can interfere is for awarding compensation towards conventional heads. We feel that appellants are entitled to claim a lump sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation in place of Rs. 8,500. Secondly we are also of the view that the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 17 in place of 11 because the age of deceased was 35 at the time of death. In a case where the age is 35, the Schedule appended to Act provides for multiplier of 17.
7. In view of aforesaid the claimants are held entitled to claim a total amount of Rs. 20,000 x 17 = Rs. 3,40,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 3,65,000.
8. The compensation awarded to the claimants is just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation.
10. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.
Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,500, if certified.