JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancing the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 26. 03. 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in M. A. C. T. Case No. 538/1988. The claimants-appellants filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 18. 06. 1988 under Section 110a read with Section 92a of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (Old Act) for compensation for Rs. 14,62,500/-, as per details given in the application, in respect of death of Shri Vinod Kumar, who died in an accident on 25. 04. 1988 arising out of the motor vehicle. The non-claimant No. 1 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed its written reply to the claim application wherein it was submitted that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of the scooter driver and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the R. S. R. T. C. The non-claimant No. 2-Om Prakash also filed its separate written reply to the claim application. Learned Tribunal vide its judgment/award dated 26. 03. 1991 allowed the claim application of the claimants-appellants and passed an award of Rs. 2,39,400/- in favour of the claimants- appellants. The claimants-appellants have assailed the judgment/award dated 26. 03. 1991 in this appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that looking to the age and the income of the deceased Vinod Kumar, the amount of the compensation passed in favour of the claimants- appellants is not proper and it should be enhanced whereas the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-R. S. R. T. C. has contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is justified and this is not a fit case to enhance the amount of compensation.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidence in respect of age of the deceased. Ex. 4 was postmortem report of the deceased Vinod Kumar wherein his age was mentioned as 26 years. The Secondary School Certificate of the deceased was also filed wherein date of birth was mentioned as 4. 1. 1962. The age of the claimant No. 1 Meena Jain wife of Late Shri Vinod Kumar Jain was also mentioned as 24 years in the claim application, therefore, the Tribunal allowed the multiplier of 24 in the present case as per relevant provisions of law prevailent at that time. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal considered the statement of AW-1 Meena Jain wherein she stated that income of her husband was Rs. 2500/- per month. She has stated in her statement that her husband was a teacher in Vikas Secondary School and used to go in night also to teach students in Chetna College and was also doing the part time accounts work in Handmade Paper Marker's Co-operative Society Ltd. AW-2 Salimuddin was examined on behalf of the claimants-appellants, who stated that Vinod Kumar was doing the work of part time Accountant at the salary @ Rs. 500/- per month in their society. AW-3 Om Prakash Sharma stated that he is Secretary of the Vikas Bal Niketan School wherein Vinod Kumar was teacher and his salary was Rs. 1,251/- per month. Learned Tribunal on the basis of above statements came to a conclusion that although income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,751/- but in the opinion of the Tribunal, it was not possible for the deceased to work at three places, therefore, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month only on the basis of Salary Certificate Ex. 7 and after deducting 1/3 amount on account of his personal expenses, calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of Rs. 800/- per month. The multiplier of 24 was applied and total amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- was awarded on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards love and affection in favour of the father and Rs. 2,000/- towards love and affection in favour of the mother. Total amount of compensation was awarded as Rs. 2,39,400/ -. In this case statement of AW1 Meena Jain clearly states that her husband Late Shri Vinod Kumar was a teacher in Vikash Bal Niketan School and was taking coaching classes in Chetna College in the night. The deceased was also working as part time Accountant in Handmade Paper Marker's Co-operative Society Ltd. and was also doing tuition work at home. AW-1 Meena Jain has stated that Ex. 6 & Ex. 7 are the certificates of salary of the deceased. Ex. 6 is salary certificate of Rs. 500/- per month issued by the Secretary, Handmade Paper Marker's Co-operative Society Ltd. , Sanganer, which was proved by AW-2 Salimuddin, who stated that Ex. 6 was issued by him as he was Secretary at the relevant time of the Society and deceased was doing part time work of accounts in their society @ Rs. 500/- per month. Ex. 7 is salary certificate issued by Vikas Secondary School issued by the Secretary of the School and the said certificate has been proved by AW-3 Om Prakash Sharma, Secretary of the Vikas Secondary School, who stated that the deceased Vinod Kumar was teacher in their school and they were paying Rs. 1251/- per month to the deceased. Apart from the other evidence, which has not been rebutted by the non-claimants, there is no reason to accept the income of the deceased on the basis of Salary Certificates Ex. 6 & Ex. 7, which comes to Rs. 1251 + Rs. 500 = 1751/- per month. Learned Tribunal although referred the statement of AW-2 Salimuddin but did not refer Ex. 6 i. e. , salary certificate issued by AW2 Salimuddin. Learned Tribunal has not even referred the complete statements of AW2 Salimuddin and has not care to go through the entire documentary evidence placed on record which includes Ex. 6-salary certificate. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal to the effect that it is not possible for a man to work at three places, does not appear to be correct. Learned Tribunal has not relied upon the statement of AW1 Meena Jain, who has stated that in night her husband used to attend coaching classes in the college. Learned Tribunal has also not read the statement of AW3 Om Prakash Sharma who subsequently stated that Vinod Kumar was doing the work of accounts of their society as part time work. Learned Tribunal has ignored the relevant evidence on record relating to income of the deceased. Therefore, on the basis of Ex. 6 & Ex. 7, which are proved from the statement of AW1, AW2 & AW3, it is clear that the total income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 1751/- per month. ;