Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by award dated 28.08.2001 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC Case No. 15/94, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,22,000/ - against the claim of Rs. 24,18,400/ - for death of Ravindra Kumar, husband of claimant -appellant No. 1 Smt. Neelam Rani. Learned counsel for appellants has raised two fold arguments assailing the aforesaid award. His first argument is that income of the deceased should not have been accepted merely at Rs. 2100/ - per month, as he was actually earning Rs. 5000/ - per month. His second argument is that even though claim petition was filed by three claimants, one widow and two minor sons of the deceased, but learned Tribunal has joined father and mother of the deceased also as claimants No. 4 and 5 and awarded them compensation. Learned counsel cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., : (2009) 6 SCC 121, to argue that even if there being five dependents, as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, only 1/4th should have been deducted towards self -expenses of the deceased, whereas learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd under that head.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance and in this case the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and should not be interfered with in this appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased should be assessed at Rs. 5000/ - per month, firstly because accident took place in the year 1993 when rupee carried higher value and secondly, there was no definite proof of any more income. Although it was shown that deceased was earning his livelihood by selling vegetables, fruits etc., but there was no definite proof of income. However, on other aspect, learned counsel justified that rather 1/3rd, only 1/4th should have been deducted towards self -expenses of the deceased in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, because there were five dependents.
(3.) THE monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2100/ - and after deducting 1/4th therefrom towards self -expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1575/ -. The appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 3,40,200/ - (1575 x 12 x 18) under the head of loss of dependency. The compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - under non -pecuniary heads i.e. loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, transportation of dead -body, is maintained.;