Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1697 (RAJ)

TARA KANWAR v. BHAGWAN SAHAI

2004-11-30

DALIP SINGH

body2004
Judgment DALIP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 8. 8. 1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jaipur Distt. , Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in the Claim petition No. 89 of 1992 by which a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 has been awarded as compensation to the appellant for the death of the husband of Tara Kanwar, appellant. ( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6. 5. 1990 the deceased mool Singh aged 25 years was driving his truck No. PJA 6893 from Jaipur towards chomu. It is submitted that at about 10. 30 p. m. another truck bearing registration No. DIG 2215 which was being driven by bhagwan Sahai, respondent No. 1, collided with the truck being driven by the deceased mool Singh as a result of which Mool singh, the husband of the appellant, died as a result, of the injuries received by him in the said accident. ( 3 ) THE sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case, which is contrary to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 1,500 per month and that after deducting 1/3rd, i. e. , rs. 500 towards the personal expenses, the dependency of the family was assessed at rs. 1,000 per month and on being multiplied by 12 the annual income contributed towards the family is Rs. 12,000. As per the provisions contained in the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case of persons of above 20 years but not exceeding 25 years, the multiplier of 17 is required to be adopted. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed this position and the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. ( 5 ) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 deem it just and proper that in the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 17 in place of 10 should have been adopted by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 deem it just and proper that in the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 17 in place of 10 should have been adopted by the Tribunal. The annual income assessed being contributed towards the family comes to Rs. 12,000, on being multiplied by 17, the compensation assessed comes to Rs. 2,04,000 (rupees two lakh four thousand only ). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 (rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) under the head loss of income while deciding the issue No. 3 the amount of Rs. 1,20,000 on being deducted from Rs. 2,04,000, the balance comes to Rs. 84,000 (rupees eighty-four thousand only ). This appeal is allowed to the extent of Rs. 84,000 only. The said amount of Rs. 84,000 would be paid by the respondents to the appellant by way of cross cheque or demand draft or depositing with the M. A. C. T. concerned, within a period of 3 months from today. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum w. e. f. the date of filing of this appeal, i. e. , 22. 11. 1994. However, in case, the said amount of Rs. 84,000 plus interest is not paid or deposited with the tribunal within the stipulated period, the appellant would be entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w. e. f. the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 23. 8. 1990. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.