MST. GAYATRI DEVI Vs. KULVENDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has bee preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its award dated 19th March, 2001. By the said award, the learned Tribunal, on adjudication of the claim of appellants, has assessed compensation in the tune of Rs. 2,13,500/- under different heads in favour of the appellants.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award, mainly on four grounds. Firstly, the income of the deceased Ghanshyam has not been properly considered and calculated. Secondly, looking to the number of dependents upon deceased, deduction for his personal living expenses has not been properly made. Thirdly, the multiplier has not been properly pressed into service by the learned Tribunal. Fourthly, the quantum of award for loss of consortium and love and affection has not been properly determined by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued on these grounds during his submissions made before this Court. He has submitted that apart from his regular monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-, deceased Ghanshyam was also earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing binding work in the printing press. AW - 3 Kedar has deposed in his statement about this income of deceased but the learned Tribunal has erroneously discarded the evidence in this regard. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly there were four dependents of the deceased Ghanshyam i.e. his wife Mrs. Gayatri and three children, namely, Vijay Kumar, Priyanka and Satya Prakash who were 29 years, 11 years, 8 years and 5 years of age at the time of his death. His submission is that in view of the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SC 121, deduction for personal living expenses of deceased Ghanshyam should have been made at the rate of one-fourth whereas the learned Tribunal has allowed the deduction at the rate of one-third which was not proper. It has also been averred that in view of Sarla Verma's judgment (supra), multiplier of 16 should have been pressed into service as the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of death but the learned Tribunal erroneously adopted the multiplier of 15 only. It has also been argued that a meagre amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded for the widow of deceased Ghanshyam, who was merely of the age of 29 years at the time of death of her husband. Likewise, a very meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded to the children of deceased Ghanshyam, who were deprived from the love and affection of their father at the age of 11 years, 8 years and 5 years only. It has also been stated that the interest @ 6% per annum only has been awarded which is required to be enhanced. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has prayed that the appeal filed on behalf of the widow and children of deceased Ghanshyam for enhancement of the award amount may kindly be allowed.