IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.91/2000 Mst.Sona Devi & Ors. vs. Mangtu Lal & Ors. 20.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF ***
Mr.Kamal Parswal, for the claimants appellants.
Mr.Tripurari Sharma, for the respondent no.3.
The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 2.11.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity in motor accident claim case no.49/1994.
It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as the only question is whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants appellants is fair and reasonable?.
The claimants appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh Chand @ Rameshwar who died on 30.3.1994 in consequence of an accident which occurred on 28.3.1994. Learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that at the time of the accident the deceased was 30 years old and has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3 of it on the ground of personal expenses of the deceased and after applying a multiplier of 17 has assessed the dependency at Rs.10000X17= Rs.1,70,000/- and after adding Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- for loss of affection has passed a total award of rupees two lakhs in favour of the claimants appellants.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Learned counsel for the claimants appellants has submitted that the income of the deceased has been assessed at a lower side and the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is not appropriate and thus the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Therefore, he has prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.
In the claim petition it has been stated that the deceased was 30 years old at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that the deceased was around 30 yeas old and has adopted a multiplier of 17. I am of the considered opinion that the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is appropriate.
It has been stated in the claim petition that the deceased was an agriculturist and was a Thekedar of D Class and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Though an office order issued from the office of Executive Engineer, PWD has been produced but there is no evidence to the effect that any work was allotted to the deceased by the PWD. There is no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The claimant appellant Sona Devi who is the wife of the deceased has stated in her cross examination that his husband would give to her Rs.1,000/- and some times Rs.2,000/- daily. This is obviously false and is totally against the pleading. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month on the basis of the evidence available on the record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to take a different view in the matter than taken by learned Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the compensation amount awarded by learned Tribunal is fair and reasonable and there is no ground for enhancement.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
(G.S. SARRAF), J.