Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2607 (RAJ)

Rodu Lal v. Chandra Mohan Chamoli

2008-11-27

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. 3. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Rukma, the widow of the appellant, who died in a motor accident took place on 7th May, 1998 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 29th July, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Application No.51/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,54,400/-(One lac fifty four thousand and four hundred) in his favour, as under:- 1. Rs.1,34,400/- For loss of income 2. Rs.15,000/- For loss of Consortium 3. Rs.5,000/- For funeral expenses 4. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased and in not applying the proper multiplier while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of income. It is contended that although AW-1 Rodu Lal, in his statement, stated that the monthly income of deceased Smt. Rukma was Rs.4,000/- but even if the said income is not believed to be true in absence of any documentary evidence then atleast the notional annual income of Rs.15,000/-, as mentioned in the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for non-earning members, should have been assessed and, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards her personal expenses, the dependency should have been determined as Rs.10,000/- per annum. It is further contended that the age of the deceased was in between 35 and 40 years, therefore, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied in the case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the New India Assurance Company Limited, defended the impugned Award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased, has not assigned any reason for assessing her monthly income as Rs.1200/-per month and, in these circumstances, I think it fit and proper to assess her annual income as Rs.15,000/- prescribed under the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988. Looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 is applicable in the present case in place of 14 as applied by the learned Tribunal, therefore, on both the points, I find that there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant will also be entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty thousand only). (10000x16=1,60,000 and 20,000) 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award of the Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,54,400/- is enhanced to Rs.1,80,000/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till the date of payment. The costs is made easy.