Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 12.3.1999 rendered by M.A.C.T., Ajmer, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 ex gratia payment has been directed to be reduced from the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,48,000 under the award and only an amount of Rs. 23,000 has been decreed in his favour.
(2.) SKIPPING unnecessary details, the nub of the appellants' story is thus: That the deceased Mahendra Singh was working as a volunteer in Home Guards. He had gone on election duty to Nagaur with the polling party. It is alleged that on 22.5.1991 at about 11.45 p.m., when the polling party was returning from Nagaur to Ajmer by truck bearing registration No. RJD 8046, an unfortunate accident occurred near Marwar Bus Stand. It is further alleged that the driver of the truck was driving it rashly and negligently at a fast speed, as a result of which the driver on a turn of a road lost the control over it and the truck turned turtle, resulting into injuries to all the members of polling party including Mahendra Singh, who during treatment succumbed to his injuries in JLN Hospital, Ajmer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel has assailed the impugned award primarily on two grounds. He canvassed that the deceased Mahendra Singh was of the age of 26 years at the time of death and as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 as suggested for that age bracket, but instead of 18, the learned Tribunal applied only the multiplier of 15, which is contrary to law. The second thrust of argument advanced by learned counsel is that learned Tribunal erred in deducting Rs. 1,00,000 ex gratia amount from the total amount of Rs. 1,48,000, which is also contrary to the settled proposition of law. He has cited one judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. B. Krishnaji Rao, 1995 ACJ 983 (AP), in support thereof. None has appeared for the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 4.
(3.) THERE being statutory force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has not opposed the same. Having ruminated over the submissions made at the Bar and having carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned award, it is noticed that the deceased Mahendra Singh was temporarily employed in Home Guard and a volunteer popularly known as 'Home Guard Constable'. It is emerged from the record that Mahendra Singh was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was being paid Rs. 800 per month salary. Albeit, no evidence with regard to the salary of Rs. 800 has been adduced by the claimants, but it is reflected in the statements of Rajendra Singh, AW 2, who was also a Home Guard Constable and had gone on election duty along with the deceased that they were being paid Rs. 800 salary per month. Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages a multiplier of 18 to be applied for a victim above the age of 25 but not exceeding 30 years. Scanning from this angle, it is found that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15, whereas he ought to have applied the multiplier of 18, as suggested in the Schedule. Having applied the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation is ascertained as under: Rs. 600 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 1,29,600 Thus, the appellants are held entitled to claim of Rs. 1,29,600 from the respondents for the loss of income. The amount of compensation awarded on various other heads by the Tribunal shall remain as they are. ;