RENU KOTHARI Vs. JOGENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide award dated 20/11/2001. Two separate claim petitions were filed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, one as dependents of deceased-Vinaychand Kothari in Appeal No.2139/2001 arising out of MACT Case No.1245/1996 and another as dependents of deceased-Vimalchand Kothari arising out of MACT Case No.1246/1996. Both the deceased were two real brothers. On 21/4/1996 both were travelling in bus No.RJ.11.P-0014, which was going from Jaipur to Agra. At about 6.00 a.m. when the said bus was crossing through Agra- Fatehpur Sikri Marg situated at Patholi (Shahganj), it collided with Truck No.UP-80 E-9376, which was standing near the road, as a result of which, they died on the spot. Learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of compensation of Rs.4,35,000/- for the death claim of deceased-Vinaychand Kothari and Rs.1,92,000/- for the death claim of deceasedVimalchand Kothari.

(2.) It should be noted that deceasedVinaychand Kothari was married. He died leaving behind him one daughter and wife apart from liability of maintaining father and younger brother while deceased-Vimalchand Kothari was unmarried when he died.

(3.) Shri K.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in not accepting the income-tax returns filed by the appellants on record of deceased-Vinaychand Kothari for the assessment year 1996-97 in which his total yearly income was shown as Rs.71,555/- and on that basis, his monthly income was Rs.6700/- but the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in accepting his monthly income as only Rs.2500/-. Alternatively, learned counsel argued that the income-tax return of the previous assessment year 1995-96 was also on record as Exb.P.13 according to which, yearly income of deceased-Vinaychand Kothari was shown as Rs.54,895/-, which could not have been ignored as it was filed before the death of deceased- Vinaychand Kothari and on that basis also, income of deceased-Vimalchand Kothari was not less than Rs.4500/- per month. Similarly, in the case of deceased-Vimalchand Kothari, learned Tribunal erred in accepting his monthly income as Rs.2500/- whereas, as per the income-tax returned filed on record for the assessment year 1995-96, his yearly income was Rs.49,948/-, which comes to not less than Rs.4000/- per month. Counsel for the appellants further argued the learned Tribunal erred in law in not granting benefit to the appellants for the death claims of both the deceased i.e. Vinaychand Kothari & Vimalchand Kothari in the head of 'future prospect', who died at a very young age of 24 years & 22 years, respectively. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law in applying the multiplier of 8 for the death claim of deceased-Vimalchand Kothari as his age at the time of accident was 22 years when multiplier of 17 was applied for the death claim of deceased-Vinaychand Kothari. Merely because deceased-Vimalchand Kothari was unmarried, learned Tribunal could not have applied the multiplier of 8 in his case. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgments of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, 2009 6 SCC 121 to argue that according to that judgment, benefit of future prospects should be granted by adding 50% of the total income of the deceased. Since there are large number of dependents, therefore, there could have been at the maximum 1/4 th deductions towards the self expenses. It was therefore prayed that the appeals be allowed and the compensation be enhanced granting the aforesaid benefit to the appellants.