CHHAJU KHAN Vs. NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the award dated 1.2.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 214/1989 wherein on account of death of one Saddiq, a boy aged 18 years, an amount of Rs. 1,23,000/ - was awarded to the appellants as compensation.

(2.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal had committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence on record which went to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/ - per month by working in the manufacturing of carpets and the carpet industries are the growing industries and future prospects of earning would certainly have grown and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road, Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 , this amount of Rs. 900/ - per month would have increased. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the multiplier of 15 have wrongly been applied. In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in case, the aforesaid submission is not accepted then in view of the decision given in the case of Shanti Bai and Ors. v. Charan Singh and Ors. : AIR1999SC845 , Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that in the case of death of 18 years, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - would be just and equitable.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am inclined to agree with the alternate submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that this case may be decided in terms of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Bai and Ors. v. Charan Singh and Ors. (supra). Consequently the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/ - which was a compensation awarded in the case of death of a boy of the age of 18 years in the aforesaid case.