LAXMI DEVI Vs. RAMPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR enhancement, the appellants have challenged the award dt. 17.01.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of merely Rs. 1,59,000/ - for the death of Hansraj, the husband of the appellant No. 1, the father of the appellant No. 2, the son of the appellant No. 3 and the brother of the appellant Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.1993 while Hansraj was working as a labourer on truck, bearing Registration No. RNE -6632, he was travelling in the said truck from Banas to Jaipur. He had to reach Jaipur so as to unload 'Bajari' (sand from the river). However, on a bridge near Chaksu, the said truck dashed with another truck, bearing Registration No. DIL5415. Consequently, because of the impact, Hansraj fell from the truck and was run over by the truck. Resultantly, he suffered grave injuries and was rushed to the hospital. According to the Postmortem Report (Ex. -4), he was hospitalized from 01.06.1993 till his death on 20.07.1993. Since the appellants were financially and emotionally dependent on Hansraj, after his demise, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

(3.) MR . Rakesh Bhargava, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has raised three contentions before this Court: firstly, that at the time of his death, the deceased was 23 years old. Therefore, according to the Schedule -II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short), which had come into force by the time award was passed, a multiplier of 17 should have been applied. However, without giving any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 12. Hence, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, despite the fact that the deceased was hospitalized for a period of one month and twenty days, no compensation has been paid for the medical expenses incurred by the family. Obviously, the medical treatment could not have been for free, thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded some compensation for the medical expenses incurred by the family. Thirdly, despite the fact that the minor had lost his father, the widowed mother had lost her son and brothers had lost their elder brother, no compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal for the loss of love and affection suffered by the family.