J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 12.9.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Case No. 1607/1999.
(2.) The brief facts noticed are that, on 16.7.1999 one Surendra Mohan Sharma, who is said to be an employee in the Telecom Department (BSNL), Jaipur, was going on his scooter, bearing No. RJ14 1M 3443, to see his mother, admitted in the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, at about 12:30 P.M. When he was passing through New Sanganer Road, suddenly another scooter, bearing No. RJ14 23M 0268, hit his scooter from back side as a result of which he bounced down on the road and suffered grievous head injury on account of the accident occurred. The offending vehicle was being driven by one Raj Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. Surendra Mohan Sharma was taken to the S.M.S. Hospital where he was declared dead. FIR No. 133/1999 was lodged at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Police seized both the scooters. Thereafter challan and charge -sheet were filed. Claim was filed before the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after analysing the material on record allowed the claim at Rs. 6,97,000/ -, which has been assailed by the claimant -appellants before this court for enhancement.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly the deceased was a government servant and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,116/ - holding the post of Senior Technical Supervisor in the Telecom Department (BSNL), at Jaipur. Counsel also contended that: (1) since the deceased was in a higher position, he was entitled and bound to receive increments over the years ahead, and had more than eight years of employment left. Therefore, the income ought to have been assessed appropriately by the Tribunal, (2) future prospect ought to have been allowed taking into consideration the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the fact that the deceased was a government servant having regularity of income and permanency of employment, (3) the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also wrong looking to the age of the deceased being 52 years, whereas it should have been 11 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121, (4) the amount allowed by way of consortium, and loss of love and affection is too low and that should be enhanced suitably, (5) son, namely Ajay, of the deceased is of unsound mind and his suffering was utmost because the deceased used to take proper care of him, and (6) nothing has been allowed by way of funeral expenses. In support of his contentions the counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others : 2012 ACJ 1428, Rajesh & Others v/s. Rajbir Singh & Others : 2013 ACJ 1403, and Kalpanaraj & Others v/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation : 2014 ACJ 1388.;