R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appeal arises out of the award dt. 05.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 96,000/ - to the appellants for the death of their widowed mother.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.1991 Smt. Gyarsi was traveling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RNI -6288, from Jaipur to her village. As soon as the jeep arrived near the Village Lavan, suddenly from the opposite side a bus, bearing Registration No. RSG -6297, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Consequently, Smt. Gyarsi expired. Since Smt. Gyarsi had already lost her husband, the claimants, her two minor children, were absolutely dependent on her for their financial and emotional support. Therefore, they filed a claim petition alongwith other persons, who were injured in the said accident before the learned Tribunal. The appellants contended that at the time of her death, Smt. Gyarsi was forty years old, was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 40/ - to Rs. 50/ - per day. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal concluded that indeed, Smt. Gyarsi was forty years old, but held that she was merely earning Rs. 1,200/ - per month. While applying the multiplier of 10, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation as mentioned above. In order to seek enhancement of the said compensation, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that although the accident had taken place in the year 1991, but Schedule -II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short) had come into force prior to the passing of the award. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied the Schedule -II as a guideline. According to the said Schedule, a multiplier of 16 should have been applied for a victim, who is forty years old at the time of death. However, without assigning any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. He has further contended that although Laxmi Narain, the appellant No. 1, had clearly stated in his testimony that his mother was earning Rs. 40/ - to Rs. 50/ - per day, but the learned Tribunal has held her monthly income to be Rs. 1,200/ - per month only, whereas it should have been held as Rs. 1,500/ - per month. Thus, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal, is on the lower side. Therefore, he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation award.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd., was served as far back as on 06.03.2002 and although the name of their Counsel appears in the cause list, the Counsel was not present before this Court even yesterday when the case was called for. Therefore, the case was posted for today. Even today, the Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of his assistance. Hence, this Court has no option but to pronounce this judgment in the absence of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.;