Jain, J. - (1.) These two appeals have been filed against the judgment/award dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 1741 and 1742 of 1992 for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The M.A.C.T. Case No. 1741 of 1992 was filed in respect of death of late Ajeet Vyas whereas M.A.C.T. Case No. 1742 of 1992 was filed in respect of injury sustained by claimant Sujata, wife of late Ajeet Vyas. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000 in respect of death of Ajeet Vyas whereas Rs. 51,200 was awarded for the injuries sustained by Sujata.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants Mr. H.M. Bhargava contended that as per finding of the Tribunal itself, the age of deceased was 28 years. The Tribunal has recorded a finding about income of the deceased as of Rs. 6,000 per month and after considering his future prospects, a sum of Rs. 9,000 was determined as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Out of it, 1/3rd amount was deducted on account of personal expenses of deceased and dependency was treated as Rs. 6,000 per month. His contention is that Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation by applying multiplier of 10, whereas as per Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. The counsel for appellants has not challenged the finding of Tribunal in respect of income and age of the deceased and his contention is only in respect of proper application of multiplier as per Second Schedule. In respect of another appeal relating to injuries sustained by Sujata, his contention is that she remained in coma for about 27 days in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, thereafter, she further remained for about 13 days in Delhi Army Hospital. The documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record. She was income tax payer but Tribunal awarded total compensation under all heads as Rs. 51,200 which is meagre amount, therefore, it should be adequately increased.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable. He submits that the Tribunal has already increased the income of the deceased from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 9,000 after considering his future prospects, therefore, multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal is proper. He further submits that so far as injury sustained by Sujata is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000 for loss of income and Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,200 for medical bills, therefore, amount of award is just and reasonable.;