Budhi Prakash Sharma and Others vs Bhenra Ram and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The claimant-appellants have challenged the award dated 4.7.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby he has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,49,000/- to the claimant-appellants for loss of the wife of claimant appellant No. 1 and the mother of claimant Nos. 2 to 6, Smt. Santosh Devi. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 27.8.2006 around 7:25 PM Santosh Devi, and her sister-in-law Saroj Devi were returning from their field back to their home. When they reached near the wood sawing shop of Rudmal, near the Shyam Kirana Store, and while they were crossing the road, a Roadways bus, bearing the registration No. RJ07-PA-0536, came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, and hit Santosh Devi on the wrong side of the road. Consequently, she sustained grievous injuries; subsequently, she died. Since the claimant-appellants lost their wife and mother, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove their case the claimant-appellants examined four witnesses, and submitted eleven documents. On the other hand the Roadways examined two witnesses, but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, although the claimants have pleaded that the monthly income of Santosh Devi was Rs. 9,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has assessed her income as merely Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the assessment of the income is on the lower side. Secondly, that although Santosh Devi was 45 years old, the learned Tribunal has merely applied the multiplier of 13. Therefore, it has not applied the correct multiplier. Thirdly, that although the children have lost their mother and appellant No. 1 Budhi Prakash has lost his wife, the children have been granted merely Rs. 5,000/- in the category of love and affection. Therefore, the grant of compensation in the said category is also on lower side.

On the other hand, Mr. Kalyan Sahai Agarwal has contended that the appellants had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the fact that Santosh Devi was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. According to the claimants, she was engaged in agricultural activity as they were the owners of 3 Bigha of land. According to the learned counsel, even if their statement is taken to be true, her death could not deprive the family of the agricultural income. Moreover, since there was lack of documentary evidence to prove her income, the Tribunal was certainly justified in taking her income as Rs. 3,000/- on the basis of case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, Secondly, that according to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for the age bracket of 45 to 50 the multiplier to be applied is 13. Since according to the Post Mortem Report, Santosh Devi was 45 years old, the learned Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier. Thirdly, that as far as compensation for love and affection is concerned, the award is dated 4.7.2008, the total compensation was for Rs. 3,49,000/-. Thus, considering the date of the award, the compensation was a just and reasonable one.

Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award.

According to Budhi Prakash (AW-1) his family owned a parcel of land. After partition, 3.25 Bigha fell into his share. The said land was cultivated by his wife as he was working in Kolkata. Although he claimed that from said land and from her carrying out animal husbandry she was earning Rs. 9,000/-, but he did not submit any documentary proof in order to establish this plea. Merely by submitting ''khasra girdawari'', the income could not be inferred from the Revenue Record. In the absence of a documentary proof, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking her income on the basis of Lata Wadhwa''s judgment. Hence the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking her income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. Hence the assessment of the income cannot be said to be on the lower side.

According to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, a deceased falling within the age bracket of 45 to 50 is entitled to a multiplier of 13. According to Santosh Devi''s Post Mortem Report she was said to be 45 years old on the date of her death. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in applying a multiplier of 13 in accordance with the Second Schedule. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel that a lower multiplier has been applied, is clearly unacceptable.

No amount of money can replace the loss of love and affection of a wife or a mother but simultaneously compensation is not meant to be a bonanza. Considering the fact that the award was passed in the year 2008 and considering the fact that the total compensation amount is of Rs. 3,49,000/- along with an interest of 9%, the compensation is certainly a just and reasonable one. Therefore, even for the category of love and affection this Court is not inclined to enhance the amount. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. This appeal being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.