KAMLA Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 22. 10. 1984 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants. Feeling dissatisfied with the sufficiency of the amount of compensation the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) ON 25. 9. 1983 at about 10. 00 a. m. when Kartar Singh deceased was going on the road, a bus No. RRB 5682 belonging to Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur struck against him as a result of which he received injuries and later on died. His wife and children filed a claim petition for the death of Kartar Singh. It was found by the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus No. RRB 5682. After perusing the evidence, the Tribunal observed that at the time of death the deceased was of 40 years of age. He found the dependency of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per year and while applying a multiplier of 12 years a sum of Rs. 42,000/-was awarded as compensation. Since the petition was filed in forma pauperis, it was directed that the compensation amount be paid to the appellants after deducting the court fee leviable on the petition of Rs. 1,00,000/-, i. e. , the amount claimed by the appellants before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the age of deceased Kartar Singh as 40 years. In fact, the age of the deceased was 35 years. He was working as an electrician and motor winder and was earning about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per year and a multiplier of at least 20 years should have been applied. The counsel further contended that it has been found by the Tribunal that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- and for the sake of argument even if this amount is assumed to be correct, 1/3rd of the said amount could not have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Lastly, the counsel contended that the interest on the amount of compensation should have been granted from the date of filing the claim application and not from the date of the award.