KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the claimant appellants and the contesting non-claimant respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, and perused the entire record of the appeal.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 17. 9. 2001, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, in Claim Case No. 226/99, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in their favour. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of Ashok Kumar in the motor vehicle accident, too place on 17. 10. 1999. It was the case of the claimant appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 160/- per day, but they failed to substantiate the same by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The learned Tribunal is correct to observe that the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs. 1320/- considering the minimum wages prescribed for the category of the workman to which the deceased belonged; out of which the learned Tribunal deducted one-third for his personal expenses and the remaining amount of Rs. 880/- has been taken as economic dependency of the family of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17 for the purpose of grant of compensation in favour of the claimant appellants. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi & Another vs. Musafir Paswan and Another (2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC)), submitted that where the claimant appellants fail to prove the income of the deceased, it is to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In that case the deceased was taken a non-earning member. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants submits that the deceased to taken a non-earning member as what their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took in Manju Devi's case (supra ). I have carefully gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi's case (supra ). There is the case of death of a boy of 13 years, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the yearly income of the deceased of Rs. 15,000/-, taking him a non-earning member as per the second schedule and therefrom the amount has not been deducted for his personal expenses.
(3.) THE position of the deceased in this case, who was married and having wife and children, cannot be taken worst than that of a boy of 13 years who died in the accident. In this case the approach of the learned Tribunal re taking the income of the deceased is accepted, it will result in causing injustice to the claimant appellants. In my opinion, for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation on the death of deceased, it is just and reasonable to take his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the learned Tribunal has not been questioned or challenged by the claimant appellants. Thus the total amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency of the family comes to Rs. 2,55,000/- (1500 x 17 ). The learned Tribunal, under this head, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,79,520/ -. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 75,480/- (2,55,000 - 1,79,520 ). ;