R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The appellant No. 1, Smt. Usha Kiran, having lost her husband, appellant No. 2, Kumari Binny and appellant No. 3, Master Lokendra Singh, having lost their father, have challenged the award dated 17.7.19977 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar ('the Tribunal' for short) and have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.1995, Gaj Singh (the deceased) was travelling on official duty alongwith his colleagues in a jeep from Pindwara to Sirohi. On the way, a tanker, bearing registration No. G.J.-U-7062, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the jeep and pushed the jeep back into a ditch. Consequently, Gaj Singh expired. At the time of his death, Gaj Singh was employed in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sirohi on the post of Meter Reader-II. Since, the appellants lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 13,95,000/-. In Order to prove their case, the appellants examined, two witnesses including the appellant No. 1: the respondents examined a single witness. Both the sides submitted number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 2,50,400/- to the appellants. However, as the appellants are aggrieved by the said compensation amount, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Resham Bhargav, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently raised three arguments before this Court : firstly, at the time of his death, Gaj Singh was permanently employed in Government Service as a Meter Reader-II. According to the documentary evidence, he was earning Rs. 2,980/- per month. However, while calculating the "loss of dependency", the learned Tribunal has reduced the income to Rs. 1,200/- per month. According to the learned Counsel a reduction of over 50% is unjustified. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the professional future prospect of the deceased. Obviously, since the deceased was employed in a Government job, during the tenure of his service, he would have received annual grade increment and benefit of higher pay-scales. Relying upon the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transportation Corporation v. Susaarnma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . The learned Counsel has argued that in fact, the learned Tribunal should have doubled the income of the deceased and then reduced, it by one-third as the income the deceased would have spent upon himself and should have taken the remaining amount of two-third as spent upon the family. Secondly, according to the post-mortem report (Ex. 2), the age of the deceased was shown as twenty-eight years. According to the Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), a multiplier of eighteen should have been applied. But, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only sixteen. Thus, a wrong multiplier has been applied. Therefore, the very basis for calculating the compensation is flawed. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has directed the payment of a consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the performance of the last rites for "loss of love and affection" and "loss of consortium". According to the learned Counsel, the loss of husband and of a father is a phenomenal loss, yet a meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- or less has been paid as compensation for the said loss. Therefore, the compensation in the category of "loss of consortium and "loss of love and affection" deserves to be enhanced.;