MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS is a claimants' appeal against the award dated 18. 8. 1993 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali in Claim Case No. 2/1991 seeking enhancement over the compensation amount of Rs. 2,53,750/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of accidental death of Rajendra Kumar, aged 25 years, brother of appellant No. 1, son of appellant No. 2 and husband of appellant No. 3.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that on 17. 9. 1990 deceased Rajendra Kumar while repairing his moped in front of Rotary Building at Pali was hit by a truck bearing registration No. PAT 8619. The truck run over the deceased who expired for the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants pointed out the age of deceased at 25 years and his earning at about Rs. 4000/- per month from his independent business. Stating losses on various heads, the claimants claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 26 lacs. The claim was put to contest by the insurer, inter alia, on the ground that deceased was trying to repair his vehicle on a busy road and the accident occurred for the negligence of deceased himself and that the truck driver as well as the deceased were not holding valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case:- ********* Parasmal, claimant No. 1 was examined in oral evidence on behalf of the claimants who also produced relevant documentary evidence including income-tax returns filed by the deceased Rajendra Ex. 12 and Ex. 13. No evidence was led by the non- applicants. On issue No. 1 after consideration of the material available on record including site inspection report, learned Judge of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver that resulted in the death of Rajendra Kumar Taking up quantification of compensation, the learned Judge found from the income tax return and the income tax assessment order of the deceased that his annual income was Rs. 45,280/ -. Learned Judge observed that the wife of deceased had been widowed within 5-6 months of marriage and, therefore, she was entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection as well. It was, however, observed further that wife of the deceased had remarried two years after his death and, therefore, she was entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss for two years at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per annum and in this manner wife of the deceased has been held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,000/ -. So far mother of the deceased is concerned, the learned Judge took into consideration the facts and factors that she was 55 years of age and was dependent on his other son Parasmal who had admitted that he was managing the factory left by the deceased Rajendra and therefore, the income from the factory was intact but the deceased would have served the mother and would have contributed about 1/4'' of income to the mother for next 15 years. In this manner, the learned Judge has adopted a multiplicand of Rs. 11,250/- (1/4th of Rs. 45,000/-) and applied a multiplier of 15 to arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,68,750/- to be awarded as compensation to the mother of the deceased. So far brother of the deceased is concerned, learned Judge was of opinion that he was major and was not dependent on his brother and, therefore, not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal has therefore, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,53,750/- (Rs. 85,000 +_ Rs. 1,68,750/-) and has also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Learned counsel Mr. Trivedi appearing for the claimants has assailed the award on its quantification of compensation and has referred to the decision of this Court in Vimla Devi and others vs. Chaman and others (1992 ACJ 1048) to submit that compensation amount is not required to be reduced on account of remarriage or prospects of remarriage of the widow of the victim. Learned counsel Mr. Singhal appearing for the insurer has strenuously opposed and submitted that ultimate award made in favour of claimants stands on rather higher side where a multiplier of 15 has been adopted for the mother and higher amount towards contribution has been taken in relation to both these claimants and even higher amount towards loss of consortium has been awarded to the wife of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award on its quantification of compensation remains too low and deserves suitable upward revision and the appeal to that extent deserves to be allowed.
(3.) THE Tribunal has taken annual income of the deceased at Rs. 45,000/- on the basis of income tax return filed in the year 1989, that is about a year before the death of the victim. He was earning from any industry established by him and, therefore, adopting a figure of Rs. 45,000/- per annum towards income of the deceased cannot be said to be an estimation on higher side; rather that remains the bare minimum in view of the age of deceased at 25 years, who had all chances of future growth in income. However, learned Judge of the Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the loss in relation to the widow of deceased and so also in relation to the mother of deceased. It has been adopted as an abstract principle by the learned Judge that when the widow had married after two years of death of victim she would be entitled for compensation for two years only and then, pecuniary loss has been calculated qua her by taking multiplicand at Rs. 30,000/- per annum i. e. 2/3rd of the estimated income of the deceased and multiplying by 2. Thereafter, a multiplier of 15 has been applied for the mother to the multiplicand at 1/4th income of the deceased for her purposes. Such calculation is not based on correct principles. There appears to be no jurisdiction for drpriving the claimants of just compensation on account of loss of dependency as well as loss of contribution and loss of estate. The fact that widow had remarried after two years of the death of victim cannot be applied in the manner that compensation towards her would be restricted only for those two years of widowhood. The decision of this Court in Vimla Devi (supra) was cited before the learned Judge of the Tribunal wherein this Court has observed that no deduction in compensation can be made on account of remarriage by widow and has made observations even to the extent that an incentive should be given for remarriage for preservation of better society. It has been pointed out that after remarriage generally a woman does not get the same status and benefits of decent life as she used to get earlier and that public feeling requires that there shall not be any deduction on account of possibility of remarriage. It has been entirely unjustified on the part of the learned Judge of the Tribunal to have not even looked inside the said citation. ;