RAMJILAL AND ANR. Vs. NAVNEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 31.5.1999 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim case No. 1066/1998, whereby the learned Tribunal has decreed a quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/ - in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Brief facts of the instant appeal, in a nut -shell, are that on 12.10.1998 at about 1.15 PM Ramji Lal, his uncle Bhairu, Aunt Aandhi and his daughter Baby Maya were coming to Bamano Ka Dhaba. No sooner did they reach near the road than suddenly the Bus bearing registration No. RJ 05 -P -0645, being driven by its driver at an excessive speed suddenly emerged from the direction of Jaipur on its wrong side and hit and ran over the child Maya resulting into her death on the spot.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on two grounds. Firstly, he canvassed that the amount of compensation awarded vide impugned order is abysmally low. Neither the learned Tribunal considered the notional income nor applied the multiplier, as suggested in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of reckoning the amount of compensation. On the contrary, the learned Tribunal arbitrarily awarded lumpsum compensation of one lac rupee towards the mental agony having been suffered by the claimants appellants of the deceased child. He canvassed that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Malti and 52 others Versus M.K. Vasu and 52 others has held that if the victim child fell in the age group of 10 to 15 years, then the claimants of the victim child were entitled to the compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ -. In the instant case, the age of the deceased child was 11 years, hence the claimants appellants deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - as compensation. He has cited, 2008 (1) WLC Raj. 589 in support thereof.