Manju Bhalla and Others vs Ashok Kumar Dhongda and Others

G.S. Sarraf, J.—The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 29.5.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur.

The brief facts are that one Harish Singh Bhalla was coming from Agra to Jaipur by car DDD-946 on 2.9.1990. The above car collided with a camel-cart at about 10.30 p.m. at a place within the jurisdiction on the police station, Bassi and the said Harish Singh Bhalla died in consequence of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant No. 2 is the son, appellant No. 3 is the daughter and appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No. 2 is the driver and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the car DDD-946. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by judgment dated 29.5.1995 passed an award of Rs. 2,70,000 in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed this appeal.

Mr. Rakesh Bhargava learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10 whereas looking to the age of the deceased a multiplier of 17 should have been adopted in this matter. He has also said that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000 per month whereas the deceased was earning far more than this. He has, therefore, prayed for increase of the compensation amount.

Mr. K.N. Tiwari learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the award/judgment of the learned Tribunal.

Manju Bhalla A.W. 1 widow of the deceased has deposed that her husband used to give around Rs. 5,000 per month to her. She has also produced a copy of Income Tax return of her husband in which the income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs. 44,000 per year. This return relates to the financial year in which the accident took place and the deceased died. No other return has been produced. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month. I do not think that any different view can be taken on the basis of the evidence available on record. 1 am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month.

The deceased Harish Singh Bhalla is said to be around 32 years old at the time of his death. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case a multiplier of 14 appears to be appropriate. If that be so then the amount on account of loss of income comes to (2000 x 12 x 14) Rs. 3,36,000. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000 on different counts. If this amount of Rs. 30,000 is added to Rs. 3,36,000 then the total amount comes to Rs. 3,66,000. Thus the claimant-appellants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,66,000.

The appeal of the claimant-appellants is, therefore, allowed to the extent stated above and the amount of compensation is increased from Rs. 2,70,000 to Rs. 3,66,000. The claimant-appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the learned Tribunal to the date of deposit/realisation on the enhanced amount. If the aforesaid amount is not paid or deposited within a period of three months then the respondents will have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Tribunal will apportion the amount among the claimants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit thereof. No order as to costs.