RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with quantum of compensation of Rs.4,45,000/-, awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its award dated 5.6.2009 in MAC Case No.581/2007. Award was passed in a death claim where one Ram Charan Bakolia died in a road accident.

2. Learned counsel for appellants has made twofold arguments seeking enhancement of compensation. His first argument is that once learned Tribunal has held that age of deceased was in between 20 and 25 years, it ought to have applied multiplier of 18 as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), whereas learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17. Relying on same judgment, learned counsel argued that deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made by learned Tribunal for own expenses of deceased out of his accepted monthly income of Rs.3000/-, because number of dependents were eight at the time of filing of claim petition and now father of deceased having died during pendency of appeal, there still remained seven dependents.

3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed appeal and submitted that multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied by learned Tribunal. She further argued that learned Tribunal has rightly accepted monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/- keeping in view minimum wages prevalent in the year 2006. Learned counsel submits that deceased had no source of regular income. It was proved that he was a painter and, therefore, monthly income of Rs.3000/- has been rightly assessed by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that brothers, mother and father could not be said to be solely dependent on deceased once, it is accepted that he was 23 years of age and his elder brother Puran Mal was a tax-payer and was very well-off and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that brothers, mother and father were dependent on deceased, particularly when father was only 60 years of age at relevant point of time.

4. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that learned Tribunal has given reasons in recording a finding that deceased was in between 20-25 years of age at relevant point of time and, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, instead of 17, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by learned Tribunal. However, in facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to accept contention that brothers, father and mother were dependent on deceased, who was 23 years of age and that his elder brother was tax-payer and further that his father was only 60 years of age at relevant point of time. Therefore, if four dependents are accepted even then learned Tribunal ought to have deducted of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd for own expenses of the deceased.

5. Learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-. After deducting 1/4th for own expenses of deceased, monthly dependency would come to Rs.2,250/- (3000-750). After applying multiplier of 18, compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,86,000/- (2250x12x18). Award of Rs.25,000/- on non-pecuniary heads i.e. deprivation of consortium, deprivation of love and affection, deprivation of future care in old age and funeral expenses, is maintained.

6. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,11,000/- (486000+25000) instead of Rs.4,45,000/-. Appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof.

Appeal accordingly stands partly allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document