Proper calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 based on the deceased's income, age, and extent of injury sustained by the claimant.

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-These two appeals have been filed against the Judgment /award dated 110.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT Cases No. 1741/1992 and 1742/1992 for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The MACT Case No. 1741/1992 was filed in respect of death of late Shri Ajeet Vyas whereas MACT Case No. 1742/1992 was filed in respect of injury sustained by claimant-Mst. Sujata wife of late Shri Ajeet Vyas. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/-in respect of death of Ajeet Vyas whereas Rs. 51,200/-was awarded for the injuries sustained by Mst. Sujata.

2. Counsel for the appellants Mr. H.M. Bhargava contended that as per finding of the Tribunal itself , the age of deceased was 28 years. The Tribunal has recorded a finding about income of the deceased as of Rs. 6,000/-per month and after considering his future prospects, a sum of Rs. 9,000/-was determined as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Out of it, 1/3rd amount was deducted on account of personal expenses of deceased and the dependency was treated as Rs. 6,000/-per month. His contention is that the Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation by applying multiplier of 10 only, whereas as per second schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. The Counsel for appellant has not challenged the finding of Tribunal in respect of income and age of the deceased and his contention is only in respect of proper application of multiplier as per second schedule.

3. In respect of another appeal relating to injuries sustained by Mst. Sujata, his contention is that she remained in coma for about 27 days in SMS Hospital, Jaipur; thereafter, she further remained for about 13 days in Delhi Army Hospital. The documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record. She was income-tax payer but Tribunal awarded total compensation under all heads as Rs. 51,200/-which is meagre amount, therefore, it should be adequately increased.

4. Counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. He submits that the Tribunal has already increased the income of the deceased from Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 9,000/-after considering his future prospects, therefore, multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal is proper. He further submits that so far as injury sustained by Mst. Sujata is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/-for loss of income and Rs. 25,000/-for mental agony and Rs. 1,200/-for medical bills, therefore, amount of award is just and reasonable.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment dated 110.1995 and also the record of the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 has recorded a finding that age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal considered that deceased had passed BA (Hons) and MBA from United States. He got education from famous Elphiston College and after doing his MBA from the University of U.S.A. he worked as Branch Manager of Citi Bank in Washington. The Tribunal has also considered the statements of AW.1 Rakesh Nathani, AW. 4 Mst. Sujata and AW. 5 H.N. Hoon who had stated that the deceased was working as executive in the bank before returning to India. He was drawing salary of 30,000 dollar per year in addition to other allowances. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-per month and after considering future prospects determined his monthly income as Rs. 9,000/-. 1/3rd amount was deducted for his personal expenses. The amount of compensation was calculated at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per month. The multiplier of 10 was a