MANORAMA DEVI Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, dated 27.5.1994 in M.A.C.T. Claim Case No. 12 of 1988 for the enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 18.8.1987 the deceased Naresh Chand Bansal, husband of Manorama Devi, appellant No. 1, father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and son of appellant Nos. 5 and 6 was going in his car bearing registration No. RND 9318 from Jaipur to Jhalawar. The said car was being driven by the deceased. He met with an accident with a bus bearing registration No. RNP 960 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C.'), respondent No. 2 which was being driven by Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1. It was the case of the appellant that bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, at the time of accident.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in this case the learned Tribunal has arrived at a finding regarding the monthly dependency of the family of deceased as Rs. 5,600. Further, the learned Tribunal after multiplying the said monthly dependency by 12 arrived at the annual loss of income and used the multiplier of only 12 whereas the learned Tribunal estimated the age of deceased as 45 years. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the case of the deceased being 40-45 years of age, a multiplier of 15 has been prescribed in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that since the deceased was employed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking, he was expected to serve till the age of superannuation which is 60 years and in that event assuming the age of the deceased as 45 years, the deceased would have served for a period of further 15 years. Thus, the learned counsel for appellants submits that the amount of compensation on account of its dependency deserves to be calculated as Rs. 5,600 x 12 x 15 which is equal to Rs. 10,08,000. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of R.S.R.T.C. does not contest the position that under the Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 15 has been prescribed in the case of persons who died in the age group of 40 to 45 years. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and consequently in the light of the provisions contained in Second Schedule the multiplier of 15 would apply in place of 12. Accordingly, the amount of dependency towards loss of income is assessed at Rs. 5,600 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 10,08,000.