JUDGMENT
Fakhruddin, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 1.12.1992, passed by Mr. G.S. Rathore, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, in Claim Case No. 39 of 1988.
2. The facts in the case are that on 30.3.1988 the appellant’s elder brother Tularam was going on the Mohinisagar Dam Road to collect the earth. At that time, respondent No. 1, Bhagwan Singh, came by driving a dumper No. RJU 5831, rashly and negligently and dashed the appellant’s brother, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The alleged vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the respondents on various grounds.
3. Mr. N.D. Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant, contended that the deceased was 50 years of age and he was doing the work of earthenware. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 400/- p.m. and determined the dependency at Rs. 150/-p.m. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 17,500/-towards compensation deserves to be enhanced on the following ground:
that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that after the death of Tularam, how the appellant will maintain himself It was submitted that the appellant was totally dependent upon the deceased and he was being maintained by the deceased.
4. Mr. V.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the appellant is a vairagi. He has renounced the world. On the other hand, Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel, submits that the evidence of Shivnarayan, PW 2, shows that the deceased was the real brother of appellant and he was being maintained by being engaged in the puja work. Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel, cited Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary, 2nd Edn., by Dr. A.R. Biswas to clear the meaning of vairagi. In this dictionary vairagi has been defined as:
Vairagi-A religious mendicant, who has abandoned all worldly pleasures for the worship of Lord Vishnu.
5. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents, further contended that the appellant being brother of the deceased, cannot file claim petition. He contended that the appellant is not the legal representative within the meaning of Fatal Accidents Act. He relied on Gujarat State Road Trans. Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), especially para 10. But this case is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the amount of compensation which has been awarded is too meagre. In para 22 of the judgment the trial court held the dependency of Rs. 150 p.m. and applied the multiplier of 10. Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded towards mental agony. In fact while awarding the interim award the direction was given that if the amount is not paid to the claimant it will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent.
7. It has been brought to the notice of the court that there has been an amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, making interim compensation to be allowed up to Rs. 50,000/-. In the instant case, the incident had taken place after the amendment had come into force in the Motor Vehicles Act. This point was lost sight of by the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the appellant-claimant.
8. This court in Bhaiyalal v. Rajesh Kumar Misc. Appeal No. 85 of 1993, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/-, in view of the amendment made.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding the compensation. It requires to be enhanced.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The amount already paid to the appellant towards compensation shall be adjusted in the same.