Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1738 (RAJ)

Shakuntala v. Sharda Trade & Transport Co.

2004-12-06

DALIP SINGH

body2004
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-This appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.05.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dausa, (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Petition (85/1990) filed by the appellant for compensation on account of the death of Jhaman Lal the husband of the Appellant No. 1 who was Junior Engineer, working with the RIICO a Government of Rajasthan undertaking. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased who was aged 34 to 35 years at the time of accident as Rs. 5,000/-and after deducting 1,700/-by way of personal expenses held the dependency of the family and contribution towards the family as Rs. 3,300/-per month. The annual dependency of the family was, therefore, assessed as Rs. 39,600/-. However learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal in the case of deceased aged 35 years has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation for loss of earning as Rs. 3,96,000/-only. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the case of fatal accidents, in case, the multiplier has to be increased, the provisions of the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 may be safely relied upon and not the multiplier of the balance number of years that the deceased was to remain in service should be applied assuming that the deceased would have retired at the age of 58 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 23 could not be applied in this case. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am inclined to allow this appeal to the extent that the multiplier of 10 was wrongly applied and I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that as per the provisions of II Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988 that in case of the deceased being in the age group of 35 to 40 years, a multiplier of 16 may be adopted. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 39,600/-(Rs. thirty nine thousand six hundred being annual income requires to be multiplied by 16 and hence Rs. 39,600/-x 16 = Rs. 6,33,600/-(Rs. six lac thirty three thousand six hundred only) as compensation figure of loss of dependency of the family. From the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,33,600/- the amount of Rs. 3,96,000/-(Rs. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 39,600/-(Rs. thirty nine thousand six hundred being annual income requires to be multiplied by 16 and hence Rs. 39,600/-x 16 = Rs. 6,33,600/-(Rs. six lac thirty three thousand six hundred only) as compensation figure of loss of dependency of the family. From the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,33,600/- the amount of Rs. 3,96,000/-(Rs. three lac ninety six thousand only) deserves to be deducted which has been paid by the respondents to the appellants under the award. The balance amount comes to Rs. 2,37,600 /-. The respondents would pay to the appellants an amount of Rs. 2,37,600/-(Rs. two lac thirty seven thousand six hundred only) by way of demand draft/crossed cheque or deposit with the Tribunal alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from today w.e.f. the date of filing of the appeal i.e., 03.08.1994. 5. However, in case the respondents fail to pay or deposit the said amount, the appellant would be entitled to recover the said amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 011.1990 6. The parties shall bear their own costs.