VIMLA AND ORS. Vs. MADAN MOHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge, in this appeal, is to the judgment under the award dated 10/05/2006 delivered by the Court Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and (EC Act), Jaipur in claim case No. 331/2004 (2709/2001) whereby the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 9,12,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants and against respondents-non-claimants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Ramballabh Sadh died on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 04/12/2001 involving a truck bearing No. DL-1G-A-6208 belonging to respondent No. 2 (non-applicant No. 2). At the time of the accident and untimely death, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was involved in printing business. His widow and four children filed a claim for Rs. 64,67000/- before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and (EC Act). The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 10/05/2006, allowed the claim in part. Dissatisfed with the quantum of compensation, the appellant preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding issue No. 4 learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 only despite the fact that the age of the deceased was duly proved to be 45 years. Thus, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. In this regard, the Tribunal has not considered the postmortem report in which the age of the deceased is mentioned as 45 years. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed in not considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 18,000/- per month while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded, as also, the future prospects of the deceased. Given the age of the deceased, the income should have been doubled while considering future prospects. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in deducting one-third (1/3rd) amount towards personal expenses whereas looking to the age of the deceased and number of dependents, the amount for personal expenses should not have been deducted as one-third (1/3rd). Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser sum towards the loss of consortium, love and affection as also, the funeral expenses incurred. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment Rajesh and Ors versus Rajbeer Singh and Ors, 2013 ACJ 1403.