RUKMA DEVI AND ORS Vs. RAMAVTAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants' appeal against the judgment and award dated 18.5.1996 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in respect of an accident which took place on 3.1.1993 involving a truck RNG 2696. In the accident, Mool Chand died. The age of the deceased according to the learned Tribunal was 28 at the time of accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age, should be at 18.

(2.) Having regard to the future advancement and increase in the earning, the learned Tribunal has estimated the gross income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m. Instead of taking this estimation, the learned Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of average income and came to the conclusion that the average income of the deceased was Rs. 2,250/- p.m., although on the basis of the advancement in the career and increase in the earning the learned Tribunal has estimated the gross income as Rs. 3,000/-p.m.WhiIeestimatingthevaJueof the loss of dependency, the future advancement in career and increase in the earning cannot be lost sight of. It will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present income of the deceased. Having regard to the future prospects and increase in the earning, the higher estimation of income should be made. In the case of CM., Kerala State Road and Transport v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 AIR(SC) 1631 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking the future advancement in career in the amount estimated, higher income of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as gross income when the deceased was drawing Rs. 1,032/- p.m. only at the time of accident. Therefore, in my opinion, having regard to the future prospects and increase in the earning, the gross income of the deceased should be estimated as Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and not the average income of the deceased of Rs. 2,250/- p.m. as assessed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the gross earning of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,000/- p.m.and if 1/3rd is deducted on account of his personal expenses, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,000/ - p.m. The total loss of dependency with reference to the multiplier 18, would come to Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 18 = 4,32,000/-. In addition, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of consortium and love. Four children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- each, on account of the loss of fatherly affection and care. The mother of the deceased is also entitled to a compensation of Rs, 5,000/- on account of the loss of the care due to the untimely death of her son. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,32,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 = 472,000/-. The amount of compensation is required to be enhanced to this extent.

(3.) No other point has been raised and pressed before me.