Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 480 (RAJ)

Harkha Bench v. Prakash Bhai

2009-02-12

DALIP SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 16.7.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur in Case No. M.A.C. 130/1994, filed on account of death of one Moolji Bhai Patel, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellants No. 2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the loss of dependency and not accepting the evidence led by the appellants regarding income of the deceased. He submits that the sole witness earning Rs. 1 lac from his agriculture and another Rs. 30,000/- annually from the sale of milk. The learned Tribunal did not accept the aforesaid and awarded compensation on a lump-sum basis amounting to Rs. 75,000/- considering the age of the deceased as 60 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the income of the deceased was not to be accepted and since the learned Tribunal has relied upon the schedule read with Section 163-A, then as provided in the case of non-earning person as per the schedule an amount of Rs. 15,000/- p.a. has been accepted as the annual income. Since the age of the deceased has been taken to 60 years, the multiplier of 8 should have been applied. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case the annual income is to be taken Rs. 15,000/-, the deduction of 1/3rd is required to be made from personal expenses, which would lead the annual income and dependency towards the family as Rs. 1,000/- only and since the age of the deceased was held to be 60 years, the multiplier of 5 which is prescribed for the persons above 60 years of age needs to be applied, which would result in the total compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/- only and the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,000/-. Thus, in the facts of the present case the same cannot be said to be inadequate and does not call for any interference. 5. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the deduction of 1/3rd, be made from the amount of Rs. 15,000/- annual income as prescribed in schedule, is concerned, this Court in the case of Kamlesh & Ors. 5. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the deduction of 1/3rd, be made from the amount of Rs. 15,000/- annual income as prescribed in schedule, is concerned, this Court in the case of Kamlesh & Ors. vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors., reported in 2006 RAR 137 (Raj.) = RLW 2005(3) Raj. 1654 relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi & Anr. vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr., reported in 2005(1) TAC 609 (SC) has held that when the income is not satisfactorily proved, the annual income as provided under the schedule will be taken by the learned Tribunal as the basis for determining the compensation. In such an event, it has been held by this Court that deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses ought not to be made. 6. In view of the above decision of this Court, I am inclined to hold that based upon the provisions of the schedule, the annual income be taken as Rs. 15,000/- as further that 1/3rd deduction from the annual income of Rs. 15,000/- p.a. as prescribed under the schedule in the case of non-earning person cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. As regard the multiplier to be applied and the evidence which has been led by the claimant is that the deceased was aged 58 years and the learned Tribunal held that the deceased to be 60 years of age. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to adopt the multiplier as prescribed for the age group of 55-60 years, which has been prescribed as 8 under the provisions of the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is assessed as Rs. 15,000 x 8 = 1,20,000/-. Since the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 75,000/-, as such, the claimants should be entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 45,000/- only. The amount of Rs. 45,000/- shall be paid to the appellants with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 22.10.1996. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed as aforesaid. There is shall be no order as to costs.