Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2533 (RAJ)

Sarita Syal v. Jujhura Singh

2005-09-21

AJAY RASTOGI, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been preferred by claimants questioning quantum and enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide award dated 13.02.1996 in MACT Case No. 634/1993 and enhanced by learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.09.2003 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 482/1996. 2. Claimants are wife and daughter of Virendra Syal, who died in motor accident which took place on 012.1993 and was 28 years of age and his monthly income was considered by the Tribunal to be of Rs. 3,750/-per month and after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, Rs. 2,500/-per month was considered financial dependency of the family. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,17,000/-as compensation to claimants after adopting multiplier of 10, which according to appellants was not in accordance with Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”). In appeal, the learned Single Judge after adopting multiplier of 12 instead of 10, enhanced the compensation for Rs. 3.77 Lacs from Rs. 3.17 Lacs. Yet, dis-satisfied with order of learned Single Judge, claimants have preferred this special appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation. Hence, this special appeal. 3. Only contention advanced by Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for appellants is that age of deceased as has come on record, was 28 years at the time of accident and according to the Schedule, multiplier of 18 should have been adopted instead of 12 applied by learned Single Judge and that apart, no reason whatsoever has been assigned by learned Single Judge in not applying multiplier of 18, as provided under scheduled to the Act. 4. Per contra, Shri Vinod Tyagi, Counsel for respondent Insurance Company, has urged that sufficient compensation has been awarded and the Schedule appended to the Act is merely a guideline but it is not mandatorily to be followed. 5. We have considered contentions advanced by Counsel for both the parties and, with their assistance, perused material on record. 4. Per contra, Shri Vinod Tyagi, Counsel for respondent Insurance Company, has urged that sufficient compensation has been awarded and the Schedule appended to the Act is merely a guideline but it is not mandatorily to be followed. 5. We have considered contentions advanced by Counsel for both the parties and, with their assistance, perused material on record. It is true that Schedule appended to the Act may not have statutory force but once a guiding Schedule is appended to the statute, it is ordinarily to be followed, unless reasons are forthcoming; and once the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident, as per Schedule appended to the Act, claimants are entitled to get multiplier of 18, which in our considered opinion, in ordinary course, was to be followed inasmuch as no reason whatsoever has been assigned by learned Single Judge or the Tribunal in not taking note of multiplier of 18 as per Schedule appended to the Act keeping in mind 28 years age of deceased. 6. Therefore, after applying multiplier of 18, and taking into consideration Rs. 2,500/-as monthly dependency to the claimants, the compensation is hereby enhanced and we hold that appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/-(Rs. 2,500/ x 12 x 18) instead of Rs. 3.77 Lacs awarded by learned Single Judge. 7. Consequently this special appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the Tribunal & order of learned Single Judge are modified to the extent that the compensation is further enhanced from Rs. 3.77 Lacs to Rs. 5.40 Lacs, and the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation enhanced in this special appeal from the date of claim petition till actual payment, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by respondents in the Tribunal within two months through A/c payee bank draft. 8. As regards disbursement, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation in Monthly Income Scheme of Post office for a term of three years in joint name of claimants and they will be entitled to receive monthly interest on post office MIS account, supra, as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. 9. No order as to costs.