Renu Kanwar @APPELLANT@Hash Mohanlal & Ors.

,,

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the",,

claimant/appellants against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter referred as",,

“the Triunalâ€) in Claim Petition No.144/2007 titled as Renu Kanwar & Ors. versus Mohanlal & Anr., whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed",,

the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- to the claimant/appellants alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing",,

of the claim petition.,,

Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.06.2007, Motisingh was going towards Nareda by motorcycle, when he",,

reached nearby Patheda Road Ki Puliya, Shivaji Colony Ke pass in Baran, a Jeep bearing No.RJ-28T-0180 driven rashly and negligently by it’s",,

driver nonclaimant/respondent No.1 Mohan Lal, came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle. Motisingh sustained grievous injuries in the",,

accident and died on the spot. FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Baran bearing FIR No.244/2007 and after investigation",,

charge-sheet was filed for trial of offence under Section 279 & 304-A of IPC against the nonclaimant/respondent No.1. Claimant/appellants being,,

widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran under Section 166",,

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.45,82,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased",,

Motisingh was 26 years aged having good health. Deceased Motisingh was Muneem at medical store of Ashu Gupta and was receiving Rs.4,500/-",,

per month from there. He was earning Rs.3,500/- per month from his agricultural land also.",,

Non-claimant/respondent No.1 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. The non-claimant admitted the fact of registration of FIR,Â",,

registration number of the vehicle, names of the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle as stated in the claim petition and denied all other material",,

averments of the claim petition, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.",,

Non-claimant/respondent No.2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. The non-claimant admitted the fact of registration of FIR,",,

Registration number of the vehicle, names of owner and insurer of the vehicle, and denied all other material averments of the claim petition. The non-",,

claimant also averred that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the relevant time, therefore, the answering non-",,

claimant is not responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against insurance company.,,

On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues.",,

In support of the claim petition, claimants examined AW-1, Renu Kanwar and exhibited 11 documents. Nonclaimant/respondent No.1 did not produce",,

any evidence. Nonclaimant/respondent No.2 examined NAW-1 Virendra Singh and exhibited insurance policy as Ex.A-1.,,

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue no.1 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants in the",,

manner that it is proved that on 02.06.2007, non-claimant No.1 was driving the Jeep No.RJ-28-T0180 rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle,",,

whereby Motisingh (the deceased) going on the motorcycle, sustained injuries and died. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.2 against the non-",,

claimant/respondent No.2 in the manner that contravention of the insurance policy is not proved. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.3 and 4 in favour,,

of the claimants and against the nonclaimants in the manner that claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- from the non-claimants",,

and awarded compensation with interest as indicated hereinabove.,,

Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of",,

compensation amount.,,

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the income of the deceased to be,,

Rs.3,000/- per month only, whereas, income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- per month from salary received from medical store and his own",,

agriculture. As such, the findings of the learned Tribunal is perverse and is liable to be modified accordingly.",,

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants also contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospectus of the deceased. The,,

deceased was 26 years aged young man and definitely he would be earning more in future.,,

Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased Motisingh was the only earning member in the family and used to contribute a,,

large part of his income towards the claimant/appellants. Because of his untimely death, the claimant/appellants have not only deprived of his love,",,

affection and care but also from his economic and future contribution.,,

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants also contended that a meager amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss,,

of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas much higher amount ought to have been awarded to the",,

claimant/appellants under these heads.,,

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimant/appellants placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi",,

& Ors. reported in 2017 (2) R.A.R. 147 (SC) and Laxmidhar Nayak & Ors. versus Jugal Kishore Behera & Ors. reported in 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45,,

(SC).,,

 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that",,

the claimant/appellants did not produce any documentary evidence or independent evidence with regard to income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/-",,

per month. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased as per the minimum wages fixed by the State",,

treating him a daily wager. The alleged accident occurred on 02.06.2007 and at the relevant time, minimum wages fixed by the Government of",,

Rajasthan were Rs.73/- per day or Rs.1,898/- per month of an unskilled labour, Rs.77/- per day or Rs.2,002/- per month of a semi skilled labour and",,

Rs.81/- per day or Rs.2,106/- per month of a skilled labour. Even then, learned Tribunal liberally assessed the income of the deceased Motisingh to be",,

Rs.3,000/- per month, which can not be taken to be on lower side. Learned counsel also contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in",,

applying multiplier of 18 while calculating the amount of compensation, whereas multiplier of 17 should have been applied looking to the age of the",,

deceased Motisingh.,,

In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport",,

Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 (2) R.A.R. 147",,

(SC) and copies of various judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in the month of April, 2018, reference whereof will be given",,

afterwards at the appropriate place.,,

We gave our anxious consideration to contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.,,

There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased, Motisingh to be 26 years at the time of the accident.",,

Claimant/Smt. Renu Kanwar (AW-1) wife of the deceased Motisingh and claimant-appellant herein, has deposed that her husband was Muneem on",,

the medical store of Ashu Gupta and was getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. Her husband used to look after the agriculture also and was earning",,

Rs.9,000/per month from both the sources. In cross-examination, the witness stated that her husband used to lease the agriculture land on fixed profit.",,

The witness admitted that the agriculture land does not stand in the name of her husband and he did not produce any document with regard to salary,,

Sr.No.,HEADS,CALCULATIONS

(i),Income,"Rs.3,000/- p.m. x 12 =Rs.36,000/- p.a.

(ii),40% of above to be added as future prospects,"[Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- (40% of

Rs.36,000/-)] =Rs.50,400/-

(iii),"1/4th of (ii) to be deducted as personal and

living expenses of the deceased","[Rs.50,400/- (â€") Rs.12,600/-

=Rs.37,800/-

(iv),Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied,"Rs.37,800/- x 17 =Rs.6,42,600/-

(v),Loss of estate,"Rs.15,000/-

(vi),Loss of consortium,"Rs.40,000/-

(vii),Funeral expenses,"Rs.15,000/-

(viii),TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED,"Rs.7,12,600/-