I.S. ISRANI, J.—These four appeals arise out of the same award and they are disposed of by one judgment. These appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein-after called the Act), against the award, dated December 27, 1985 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in case No. 69/1983. It will suffice to state for the purpose of these appeals that deceased Shobhraj, who was driving his car, while returning from Ajmer to Jaipur, alongwith his wife appellant Smt. Deepa and other appellants Shri Chander and Smt. Vandana, met with an accident near Hira pura, on Ajmer Road with truck, which was alleged to be driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed. It is further stated that the truck came on the wrong side and dashed against car with such a force that the roof of the car ripped open and the car was dragged to a distance, the occupants of the car were thrown after the impact the truck went to a distance of 50 to 60 and turned turtle. The driver of the truck after the accident ran way from the site. After recording evidence of all the parties and hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded different amounts to different claimants. In appeal No. 112/1986, in which the compensation was claimed on account of death of the deceased person, the amount of 1,10,000/- was awarded to the claimants In appeal No. 111/1986, Smt Deepa claimed compensation on account of injuries recevied by car and she was awarded amount of Rs. 10,000/- on this count. In appeal No. 110/1986, Chander, another injured occupant of the* car awarded Rs. 20,000/-, and his wife Smt. Vandana, on account of some injuries, awarded amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The contention of Sh. H.M. Bhargava learned counsel appearing for Smt. Deepa in her both appeals is that the only point for consideration in all these appeals is regarding enhancement of the compensation awarded as no appeal against the award has been filed by any of the respondents. It is submitted that it has been proved on the basis of income-tax-returns that the deceased was doing textile business from which his net income was Rs. 26, 460/ per year which comes to Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is pointed out that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that since the textile shop was still running after death of the deceased Shobhraj, therefore, the dependents are not entitled to get compensation on the amount of the earning of deceased person. The Tribunal in its own imagination thought that the claimants are entitled to receive compen-sation on amount of gross income of Rs. 8,000/- p.m., which deceased Shobhraj would have earned as a good-sales man while he worked on the textile shop, owned by him. Therefore, the Tribunal after taking amount of Rs. 250/- as personal expenses, fixed the amount of Rs. 550/- as dependency for the claimants. The Tribunal has stated, looking to the trend of the various courts the span of life can be fixed at 65 years but applied multiplier of 15 years even though the deceased was only 38 years at the time of accident. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that the whole process of the Tribunal for arriving at the income of the deceased ignoring the income proved by income-tax returns, is fallacious and the 15 years multiplier applied is also very low, keeping in view the age of 38 years of deceased and the fact that the Tribunal it self held that span of life usually is 65 years age. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium to the widow who was 30 years old at the time of accident and a nominal amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection to the mother, to the deceased. It is submitted that on account of this unfortunate accident, there is no child in the house of the deceased and therefore, the growth of the family has come to an end. The contention of the learned counsel is that the compensation should be assessed at t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document