R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against the award dt. 22.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/ - to the widow wife, two minor children and the widow mother of the deceased.
(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 29.05.1995 the husband of the appellant No. 1, Mr. Devki Nandan, was travelling with few other persons in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ -20/G -1541, for Ganga Snan to Soronji (U.P.). While jeep was crossing near village Nagla Mevati on Bharatpur road, a tanker, bearing Registration No. RJ -20/G -1541, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Three persons including Mr. Devki Nandan expired in the said accident. Since the appellants were financially dependent on Mr. Devki Nandan, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a composite reply, the respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Company Ltd., filed a separate reply. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses and submitted six documents. The respondent No. 3, on their behalf, examined a single witness to prove the Insurance Policy. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as stated above vide its award dt. 22.03.1997. Since the appellants are aggrieved by the said award, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount before this Court. Mr. Hamendra Goyal for Mr. L.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has raised five contentions before this Court; firstly, that according to the Schedule -II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act , for short), since the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of death, a multiplier of 18 should have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. However, without giving any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 15. Thus, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, considering the fact that the deceased was a businessman, who ran a provisional store along with a store for sweetmeat (Mithai), the future prospect of increase in his income should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. But, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has awarded merely Rs. 15,000/ - as a lump sum amount for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the children and to the wife. According to the learned Counsel, the amount is too meager. Fourthly, although the evidence was produced to show that expenses were incurred for transporting the dead body of the deceased from Bharatpur to Sawai Madhopur, the place where the claimants were residing, no compensation has been paid for such transportation. Lastly, that no compensation has been awarded for funeral expenses incurred by the claimants.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. G.K. Bhartiya, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, has strenuously argued that in case a correct multiplier is applied, then the future prospect of increase of the income of the deceased need not be applied in the case. On the other hand, he has fairly conceded that the expenses for the transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses should have been awarded to the appellants.;