B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the award dated December 7,1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, in Claim Case No. 21 of 1985 (Smt. Anju Be gal and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. and Claim Case No. 100 of 1985 Smt. Ramesh Rani v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,000/- and apportioned the compensation so awarded amongst the various claimants and the dependents.
(2.) DR . Vinod Kumar Behal, who was working as the Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Dalimir Khera district Firozpur (Punjab), had come to Sri Ganganagar on December 1, 1984. He alongwith Bhagat Ram Nagpal, on Luna moped, was going to village Nathawala side on Ganganagar-Hanumangarh State Highway on the left side of the road and when their Luna reached near the rubber factory, a bus No. RSG 6222 came from behind and dashed against the Luna, due to which Bhagat Ram Nagpal and Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal fell down and bus, after crushing them, collided with an electric pole and thereafter went in a ditch and stopped there. The bus, also, hit a rickshaw. On account of this accident, Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal died on the spot. Smt. Anju Behal -- the widow of the deceased -- on her behalf and on behalf of her two daughters. Viz., Kumari Rubbal and Kumari Soniya -- filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar and this claim petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 21 of 1985. In this claim petition, they claimed a compensation amounting to Rs. 16,59,802.50. Rs. 9,59,802.50p. were claimed on account of loss of wages and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed on account on account of loss of pension and other service benefits receivable after retirement and Rs, 2,00,000/- were claimed on account of deprivation of love, estate, protection, consortium etc. Smt. Ramesh Rani -- the mother of deceased Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal -- also filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 16,59,802.50p. Rs. 9,59,802.50p. were claimed on account of loss of wages and an amount of Rs, 5,00,000/-was claimed on account of loss of pension and other service benefits receivable after retirement and Rs, 2,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of love, estate, protection, mental agony etc. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000/- on account of loss of wages and he, also, awarded Rs. 5000/- on account of loss of love, affection etc. He, thus, allowed to claim petitions for a sum of Rs. 3,89,000/- and rejected the claim of the claimants on other counts. After determining the total compensation, the learned Judge of the Tribunal apportioned the amount of compensation between the two sets of claimants. He awarded Rs. 19,000/- to Smt. Ramesh Rani -- the mother of the deceased and awarded Rs. 3,70,000/- to Smt. Anju Behal -- the widow of the deceased Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal -- and her children. It is against this judgment dated December 7,1988, that both these appeals have been filed by the appellants. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants Anju Behal and her two daughters that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is unjust and inadequate and the learned Judge of the Tribunal, while determining the compensation, applied a wrong multiplier and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, is must on the lower side. His further contention is that the award of Rs. 5,000/- towards deprivation of love and affection, mental agony, loss of estate and consortium is much on the lower side. The last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded an interest @ Rs. 6% per annum only, while the applicants should have been granted interests on the amount of compensation awarded atleast @ Rs.18% per annum. The learned Counsel for the appellant Smt. Ramesh Rani adopted the same arguments raised by Smt. Anju Behal, but she raised one additional argument that the appellant being the mother of the deceased Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal, was entitled for equal share from the compensation and the learned lower Court committed an error in awarding Rs. 19,000/- to her while* apportioning the amount of compensation. The learned Counsel for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, on the other hand, has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned lower Court is just and proper and needs no enhancement. According to him, a proper multiplier has been adopted in the present case in determining the amount of compensation. Lastly, it is submitted by him that the mother of the deceased, not being the dependent of the deceased Dr. Vinod Kumar, is not entitled for any apportionment in the amount of compensation and what has been awarded to her, is a large amount and she is not entitled for any further amount of compensation.;