A.M. Sapre and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
1. Claimants are in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, questioning the legality and validity of the award dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Kukshi, district Dhar (MP) in Claim Case No. 161 of 2004.
2. The only grievance raised in appeal is about inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Jagdish, who died at the age of 28 years and who was engaged in the profession of a skilled worker, i.e., mason. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000, along with interest payable at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. So the short question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for further enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out and, if so, to what extent.
3. Looking to the controversy involved we do not wish to burden our judgment by narrating the entire facts as they are not necessary. The findings with regard to the liability and the manner in which the accident occurred are already held in favour of the claimants. In the absence of any crossappeal or even cross-objection filed by any of the respondents, namely, owner, driver and insurer, those findings have attained finality and, therefore, they need not be taken note of.
4. It is death case in which one Jagdish met with a motor accident on 26.12.2003. He lost his life leaving behind widow, children and aged parents. He was aged about 28 years. As observed supra, he was engaged in the business/profession of skilled worker. He used to do, as it is alleged in the claim petition and was proved by leading evidence the job of flooring. A claim petition was filed claiming compensation payable to the claimants who are the legal representatives of Jagdish. On contest, the Tribunal, as observed supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000, as total compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal was of the view that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month. Taking this to be the basis, the dependency figure was worked out and applying the multiplier of 18 a sum of Rs. 2,95,000 was awarded. It is this determination made by the Tribunal which is sought to be challenged by the claimants by filing this appeal on the ground, inter alia, that this award is on lower side and, therefore, a case for enhancement is made out.
5. Heard Mr. N. Jain and Mr. Tarun Kushwaha for the appellants and Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part and enhance the compensation to the extent indicated infra. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 3,000 would be more reasonable sum which can be taken as basis for determining monthly income of deceased from his profession. A sum of Rs. 2,000 per month cannot be said to be proper figure looking to the evidence. Although, an attempt was made at the instance of the claimants to contend that deceased's income was more than Rs. 5,000 per month, etc., but we are not impressed with the submission and, therefore, we wish to restrict income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month. Instead of Rs. 2,000 per month, the compensation is reworked by taking Rs. 3,000 to be the monthly income of the deceased. In this way, his yearly income comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after deducting one-third towards personal expenditure of deceased, we get dependency figure of Rs. 24,000. Applying thus a multiplier of 18 we get a figure of Rs. 4,32,000. We wish to add a lump sum compensation payable under the statutory conventional heads thereby, making a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000.
7. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent made attempt to urge that impugned award is just and reasonable calling no interference, but in our view, the same is not acceptable to us. We have already indicated as to why we are interfering in the impugned award to the extent so as to make it reasonable, adequate and proper.
8. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid the claimants are held entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000. All other findings recorded by the Tribunal are upheld being not under challenge except to the extent which we have modified supra. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part as indicated above. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified.