Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2394 (RAJ)

Teeja v. Vidhyadhar Singh

2006-08-02

G.S.SARRAF

body2006
Judgment G.S. Sarraf , J.-The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment /award dated 111.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. The facts in brief are that at about 6.15 PM on 19.01.1993 when one Nanag Ram was going home from Jaipur on bicycle a tanker RSG 83 driven rashly and negligent by Respondent No. 1 Vidhyadhar Singh came from behind and hit him near Bandh Ki Ghati in consequence of which he died. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the tanker RSG 83. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and Appellants No. 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased Nanag Ram. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an award of Rs. 1,06,000/-in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by this Judgment /award the claimants-appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Shri K.N. Tiwari learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 4 and has said that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Nanag Ram as Rs. 1200 per month whereas it is established by the evidence on record that he was earning far more than this. He has also said that the learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10 whereas looking to the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 should have been adopted. He has, therefore, prayed for increase of the compensation amount. He has relied on 1998 ACJ 848. 4. Shri Prashant Sharma for Shri R.P. Singh learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the Judgment /award of the learned Tribunal. 5. Teeja AW-1 is the widow of the deceased Nanag Ram. She has stated that her husband owned two bighas of land and earned Rs. 100-125 per day by agriculture and business of vegetables. Hanuman AW-2 states in his cross examination that Thus Hanuman (AW-2) does not say that the deceased was doing the business of vegetables. Mahadev Prasad AW-3 is nephew of the deceased. He says nothing about the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1200 per month. I am unable to agree with this view of the Tribunal. Mahadev Prasad AW-3 is nephew of the deceased. He says nothing about the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1200 per month. I am unable to agree with this view of the Tribunal. After examining the evidence on record including the statement of appellant Teeja (AW-1) and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the number of dependents I assess the income of the deceased Nanag Ram as Rs. 1800 per month. If the deceased spent 1/3rd of it on himself , then the dependency may be assessed at Rs. 1200/-per month. The deceased Nanag Ram was 50 years old at the time of his death. I do not find that the multiplier of 10 adopted by the learned Tribunal in this particular case is in any way inappropriate. If we assess the dependency at Rs. 1200/-per month then the amount comes to (1200x12x10) Rs. 1,44,000/-. As held by the Tribunal Rs. 10,000/-may be added on account of loss of love and affection. Thus the claimants-appellants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000/-. 6. The appeal of the claimants-appellants is, therefore, allowed to the extent stated above and the amount of compensation is increased from Rs. 1,06,000/-to Rs. 1,54,000/-. The claimants-appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the learned Tribunal to the date of deposit/realisation on the enhanced amount. If the aforesaid amount is not paid or deposited within a period of three months then the respondents will have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Tribunal will apportion the amount among the claimants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit thereof . No order as to costs.