Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 6.1.2000 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 548/1997, 549/1997, 724/1997, 545/1997 and 546/1997 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City Jaipur, (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.7.2000, passed following order in all the misc. appeals mentioned above and in other similar misc. appeals :

"These 11 appeals have been filed against a common award of the Tribunal. Out of these 11 appeals, as many as five appeals No. 723/2000, 726/2000, 732/2000, 737/2000 and 727/2000 have been filed by claimant Pappu. The appeal No. 727/2000 has been filed because of the injuries suffered by him, whereas other appeals have been filed claiming compensation on account of death of mother, father, wife and daughter, that is, he filed four separate claim applications. In each of his claim applications the appellant has claimed dependency compensa-tion as well whereas he himself was major and was earning.

The present appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation.

I am issuing notice to respondents not only for enhancement but whether one claimant can claim dependency compensation on account of death of his various relatives dying in the same accident. Rules is made returnable within four weeks.

The respondents are at liberty to assist as to whether in such circumstances the dependency can be claimed on account of death of each of his relative other than the compassionate grounds such as loss of affection etc.

Notice are also issued to counsel for appellant as to whether dependency as claimed and awarded to appellant be reduced or not in all cases.

In all the aforesaid cases notice be issued to respondents, as all these 11 appeals are arising out of the same accident and same award. All the aforesaid appeals be tagged with.

The appeals be listed on 25.8.2000."

4. The facts in brief are that on 22.3.97 Fakruddin, Jammo Begum, Jaida Bano, Baby Guljar, Smt. Najma, Mohammed Arif, Ahmad Khan, Noor Bano, Nagma, Sajjo, Pappu and Babli were going by Maruti Van No. RJ 14 T 1615 from Ajmer towards Jaipur. The van was being driven with moderate speed by its driver on he correct side of the road. When the van reached near mid-way just ahead of Dudu, a Tanker No. HR 38 0794 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came from opposite direction and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side, hit the van. Because of the hit the van overturned and caught fire. In this accident Fakruddin, Jammo Begum, Smt. Jaida, Baby Guljar, Islamuddin, Ahmad Khan Mohammad Arif and Smt. Nazma died and other persons sustained serious injuries. Different claim petitions were filed by the injured persons and legal representatives of other deceased persons. All the claim petitions were consolidated and have been decided by the same award. After framing the issues, and recording the evidence and on consideration of documents submitted by both the parties, the MACT vide its common award dated 6.1.2000 granted compensation to the claimants. Against the award dated 6.1.2000 the above appeals have been filed for enhancement of the compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the MACT manifestly erred in awarding the amount of compensation erred in awarding the amount of compensation to the claimants appellants in a lump sum way. The MACT has not followed the settled principle of calculating the amount of compensation by way of fixing a proper amount of dependency and by multiplying the same with proper multiplier. The MACT should have awarded a much higher amount to the claimants under the head of loss of love and affection. The learned counsel placed reliance on Lata Wadha and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2001 ACJ 1735) and Man

Click Here to Read the rest of this document