MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS is claimants appeal seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in its award dated 26. 4. 1993 made in Claim Case No. 100/1990 in the sum of Rs. 92,905/- inclusive of interest on account of accidental death of Satyanarain, 30 years in age, husband of appellant No. 1, son of appellant No. 2 and father of appellant Nos. 3 to 5. Only the question of quantum of compensation being involved in this appeal, a brief reference t the background facts would suffice.
(2.) THE accident in question occurred on 1. 1. 1990 at about 5. 00 P. M. near Dangiyawas Petrol Pump on Jodhpur to Bilara Road when the victim Satyanarain standing on the kuchcha road was hit by an Ambassador Car bearing number 82b-22902 (1530) belonging to non- applicant No. 1 Union of India and driven by non-applicant No. 2 Mangu Ram. Satyanarain sustained several injuries and was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur where he breathed his last on 13. 1. 1990 while undergoing treatment. Stating the age of the deceased at 30 years and his earning at Rs. 1,500/- per month while working as turner on lathe machine and as welder, his dependents claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- for the loss suffered by them including treatment expenditure during hospitalisation of the deceased from 1. 1. 1990 to 13. 1. 1990. The claim application was contested by the non- applicants denying rash and negligent driving of the car. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: It may be pointed out that in issue No. 2 supra, car driver has wrongly been referred as non-applicant No. 3; he was arrayed an non-applicant No. 2. Be that as it may, in oral evidence, the claimants examined Leela Devi, claimant No. 1 and wife of the deceased as PW-1, Hari Kishan, eye-witness to the accident as PW- 2 and Mohanlal, brother-in-law of the deceased as PW. 3. The non- applicants examined the car driver, Mangu Ram as DW-1. The claimants also produced relevant documentary evidence including police investigation papers; bills of treatment expenditure and certain documents in relation to the employer firm of the deceased, M/s. Vijay Engineering and Trolley Works. The learned Judge of the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record found in issue No. 1 that the accident was caused by negligence and omission of caution by the car driver, that Satayanarain sustained injuries including head injury in the accident; and that he died because of such head injury. Taking up quantification of compensation in issue No. 2 the learned Judge observed that the wife of the deceased, PW. 1 Leela Devi stated her husband earning Rs. 1,000/- per month at the time of their marriage whereas the witness PW. 3 Sohanlal stated that the deceased was getting salary at about Rs. 600-700/- at the time of his marriage; that the deceased was working in the said M/s. Vijay Engineering Works that had closed down; that the name of Satyanarain was stated in the particulars of the employees of said concern, Ex. 23; and that Satyanarain remained hospitalised for 12 days and bills of his treatment expenditure in the sum of Rs. 905/- were filed. After this much of the consideration, the learned Judge observed that claimants were entitled for Rs. 905/- towards treatment expenditure; that there was contradiction in the statements of Leela Devi and Sohanlal about the salary of the deceased at the time of his marriage; and thereafter concluded that the claimants were entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 70,000/ -. The learned Judge further allowed Rs. 15,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs. 4,000/- towards funeral expenses and in this manner arrived at a figure of Rs. 89,905/- to be awarded as compensation. The learned Judge further observed that disposal of the case was delayed because the claimants' side took long time in adducing evidence and, therefore, allowed a lump sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards interest. In this manner the tribunal made the award in the sum of Rs. 92,905/- in favour of the claimants.
(3.) THE award so made by the Tribunal has been assailed by the claimants in this appeal. Learned counsel Mr. J. M. Bhandari appearing for the appellants has contended that the award on its quantification of compensation remains too low and grossly inadequate where the learned Tribunal has not considered awarding of reasonable compensation towards pecuniary loss on the basis of the income of the deceased who was a skilled workman and has further erred in denying reasonable rate of interest on entirely irrelevant considerations and unjustified grounds. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Farjand Ali has supported the impugned award with the submissions that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the amount so awarded by the Tribunal with reference to the period of accident and the claim application i. e. of the year 1990 cannot be said to be grossly inadequate; that the Tribunal has allowed entire amount towards bills of treatment expenditure and has further awarded higher amount towards funeral expenses and, on the whole, the award remains that of just compensation. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award on its quantification of compensation remains grossly inadequate and too low and cannot be approved. Having examined the considerations adopted by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, this Court is constrained to observe that the approach of the learned Judge while dealing with a vehicular accident claim case in assessing the pecuniary loss at a lump sum of Rs. 70,000/- in relation to a skilled workman of 30 years of age and having five dependents cannot be countenanced. This Court is clearly of opinion that compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal is required to be quantified on some rationale and some principle; and ordinarily, the short-cut of awarding compensation in lump sum ought not be adopted. In the present case, such a cursory approach has resulted in making the award abnormally on the lower side causing gross injustice to the claimants. ;