- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by claimants against award dated 17.10.1997 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.1579/1992, seeking enhancement of compensation in a death claim. Learned Tribunal by its award, awarded compensation of Rs.1,63,800/- to claimants for accidental death of Liyakat Ali, husband of appellant no.1 Naseem Banu.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellants argued that learned tribunal has misread statement of appellant no.1 Naseem Banu. In this connection, he referred to discussion made by learned Tribunal while deciding Issue no.3. It was argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly mentioned that Naseem Banu has stated that she and her husband used to work together in their own power-look and earn a sum of Rs.2000/- per month. After deducting Rs.800/- on assumed income of Naseem Banu, learned Tribunal determined monthly income of deceased at Rs.1200/- only. LEARNED counsel submitted that deceased was working in his own power-loom and was not employed anywhere and, therefore, learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that deceased was earning only Rs.1200/-. LEARNED Tribunal has misread statement of AW-1 Mst. Naseem Banu. There is evidence on record adduced by claimants that deceased met with an accident. He was, in critical condition, taken to Ahmadabad in ambulance and he was subjected to treatment for four days. Nothing has been awarded by learned Tribunal for transportation and treatment during that period. He ultimately died. LEARNED counsel also submits that at relevant point of time age of deceased was 26 years and, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ? (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 17 should be applied but learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 only. LEARNED counsel further submits that award of Rs.10,000/- only cumulatively for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc. was not justified. LEARNED counsel submits that mother and father of deceased were also party, though as non-claimants, to claim petition, therefore, there being four dependents deduction of 1/4th should be made rather than 1/3rd. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that mother and father were not claimants and that it was neither pleaded nor proved that they were dependent on the deceased. It was argued that at relevant point of time minimum wages of skilled labour was Rs.17/- per day, which is quite low. Even if it is assumed that deceased was working in his own power-loom then also learned Tribunal was rightly determined income of deceased at Rs.1200/- per month. Learned Tribunal in arriving at that finding, recorded its satisfaction that the claimants have claimed the joint income of deceased and her wife was Rs.2000/- per month and out of that learned Tribunal assumed income of wife to be Rs.800/- and assessed income of deceased at Rs.1200/-. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income of deceased and his wife equal, but even if that factor is ignored then also amount of Rs.1200/- cannot be said towards lower side considering value of rupee in the year 1988 when accident took place. Keeping in view the findings recorded by learned Tribunal, I am not persuaded to accept more income of deceased than what has been assessed by learned Tribunal at Rs.1200/- per month, even if he was working in his own power-loom. Further, I am of the view that mother and father were not dependent on the deceased. Neither they were impleaded as claimants nor any evidence is adduced nor any proof in regard thereto has been produced on record. For the reasons stated above, I deem it appropriate to marginally enhance the award of compensation by directing that instead of 16, multiplier of 17 should be applied on accepted monthly income of deceased at Rs.1200/-. Keeping in view number of dependents, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased and assessed monthly dependency at Rs.800/-. Applying multiplier of 17, loss of monthly dependency would come to Rs.1,63,200/- A sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded on non-pecuniary heads, deserves to be enhanced, and wife is awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- to daughter for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- for transportation and medical expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded on non-pecuniary heads. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,98,200/- (163200+35000) instead of Rs.1,63,800/-. Appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof.
(3.) APPEAL accordingly stands partly allowed.;