Vineet Kothari, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur dt. 03.10.2008 deciding the MACT case No. 438/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. In an accident which took place on 19.05.2007 the deceased Pradeep Karnawat along with few other persons was travelling in the insured car taxi No. RJ 19 T 3288, while coming back from Phalodi to Jodhpur at about 10 PM in the night, the said car taxi being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver hit from the back side of the tractor running on the said road and on account of the said accident, said Pradeep Karnawat died. He was aged 43 years and was working as a Manager in firm M/s Sophisticated Traders, Jodhpur and was also doing part time accounts work in M/s Gayatri Medical Hall at Jodhpur. The deceased left behind widow of 37 years, two sons Raunak aged 15 years and Gaurav aged 11 years, besides parents the mother at age 65 years and father at age 71 years. The claim petition was filed on 24.07.2007 claiming compensation on account of said death at Rs. 93,23,000/-.
3. The Tribunal after recording the evidence of witnesses, determined the said compensation at Rs. 6.00 lacs and further awarded sum under the heading of loss of consortium, funeral expenditure etc. and thus total compensation of Rs. 6,52,000/- was determined by the learned Tribunal which was directed to be paid by the respondent, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
4. Being aggrieved of the said award, the claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that though the income of the deceased at the time of death was proved to be Rs. 10,000/- per month as he was working as manager in the firm M/s Sophisticated Traders and Rs. 2,500/- from part time accounts work in M/s Gayatri Medical Hall, and the said income having been proved by the said employer, who produced the salary certificate before the learned Tribunal and proved the same, the learned Tribunal without valid reason held the income as not proved and took the monthly income only at Rs. 5,000/- per month.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that no future increase in the income on account of future prospects was also considered by the learned Tribunal as the deceased died at young age of 43 years and looking to the long expectancy of life for at least 65 years at least his monthly income should have been treated as double during the course of his life. He further submitted that the compensation awarded on account of loss of love and affection and consortium in favour of wife and children and parents at Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively is at very lower side and relying on the decision of this Court in case of Suman Jain (Smt.) and Ors. v. Abdul Kayam and Anr. 2005 R.A.R. 550 (Raj.), he submitted that the Court in such case has allowed compensation on account of loss of consortium at Rs. 25,000/- for such dependents who are close relatives. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation suitably.
7. Mr. Varun Gupta on the side opposite for Insurance Company submitted that since the income of the deceased was not duly proved as the salary certificate produced by the claimants and proved by the employer was not supported by other corroborative evidence like books of accounts of the firm, the Tribunal's decision cannot be faulted. He also submitted that there was no proper evidence of part time work undertaken by the deceased prior to his death.
8. Having heard learned Counsels and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and record of the case and the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the evidence produced before it in correct prospective. The deceased was working as a Manager in medical firm and was aged 43 years at the time of said unfortunate accident which resulted in his death and the salary certificate of Rs. 10,000/- per month was duly proved by the employer AW 3-Mr. Abhishek Purohit, who said that deceased was working for last 5 years in the said firm and in the said 5 years his salary was stated to have been doubled by the said employer. The work as part time accountant in the firm M/s Gayatri Medical Hall was also duly proved by the employer AW 2 Chandra Mohan Gandhi. Thus, both the employers respectively appeared before the Tribunal and proved the said salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 2,500/- per month on account of part time work respectively. There was no good reason to ignore this evidence before the Tribunal and hypothetically arrive at a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. The monthly income of the deceased, therefore, at the time of his death deserves to be taken at Rs. 12,500/- per month. After applying the prescribed multiplier in Second Schedule of 15, the compensation on account of loss of income would come to Rs. 15,12,000 (12,500 (-) 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 4100 = Rs. 8400 x 12 x 15). The Tribunal admittedly has not taken into account any increase on account of future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased who died at comparatively young age of 43 years, which can be said to be the prime age of a man. In the opinion of this Court, the consolidated 50% of the aforesaid compensation on account of loss of income due to death deserves to be added to the said compensation taking into account the future prospects of increase in the income, though one cannot be sure how much multi fold increase might have been there, but a broad guess work and looking into the inflation rates, this much increase is considered appropriate. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- deserves to be further awarded to the claimants on this account.
9. As far as the amount of compensation on account of loss of love and affection and consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded total Rs. 40,000/- for all the 5 dependents whereas the coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited before this Court in Suman Jain (Smt.) and Ors. v. Abdul Kayam and Anr. (supra) the Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on the said account. Therefore, the compensation under this heading also deserves to be increased to Rs. 25,000/- for each of these 5 dependents and after deducting the sum already awarded by the Tribunal, the further enhancement of Rs. 85,000/- deserves to be awarded to these claimants. Thus, computed the compensation to be awarded to the claimants would work out as follows:
(i) Loss of income Rs. 15,12,000/-(ii) Expected increase in income in future Rs. 7,56,000/-(iii) Compensation for loss of love, affectionand consortium Rs. 1,25,000/-(iv) Funeral expenditure etc. Rs. 12,000/-------------------Total Rs. 24,05,000/-Less : Compensation awardedby the Tribunal Rs. 6,52,000/-------------------Net enhancement Rs. 17,53,000/-------------------
10. The claimants are thus, entitled to the enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 17,53,000/- which would be payable to the claimants by the respondent insurance company with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment. The said enhancement with interest shall be deposited in two months in the following manner:
(i) Fixed deposit in a nationalized Bank in the name of wife to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
(ii) The Fixed deposit of Rs. 3 lacs each in the name of two sons of the deceased separately with joint name of their mother payable to either or surviver, may be made for a period of 3 years out of the remaining amount, Rs. 3 lacs may be deposited in the fixed deposit in joint name of both the parents and both the sons of the deceased and the balance amount of enhancement of compensation with interest amount on such enhancement may be deposited in the Saving bank account of the wife of the deceased. The aforesaid amount of enhancement may be deposited by the Insurance company with the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall disburse the same forthwith in favour of the claimants as aforesaid within a period of 60 days from today. The appeal is thus allowed with no order as to costs.
11. Before parting with the judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid accident took place on account of the Tractor Trolley being driven on the said road without proper light on the back side or radium or reflector so as to identify their existence and plying on the road. This Court recently by an interim order dt. 11.05.2009 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 560/2009 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudha Sachdeva and Ors. has made certain directions for steps to be taken by the State authorities and Insurance Companies for fixing radium reflectors, strips (round, square or of such other shape) on all four sides of the trolleys and the folding flaps of trolley on both sides and both the sides of the tractor itself in such a manner and in such quantity as would be sufficient to locate their identity and existence while on the road against the beam lights of other vehicles plying on such road.
12. While in those appeals the Court intends to monitor the said work by continuous mandamus and monitoring as has been expressed in that order, in the present appeal it would suffice to direct the State authorities as well as the Insurance Companies to undertake necessary steps for fixing of all tractor trolleys in the State of Rajasthan whether old or new, whether registered or not even registered, to fix them with such radium reflectors plates/pieces stuck on them in such a manner that their identity and existence on the road is conspicuous immediately in the beam light of plying on such roads particular after the sun set during the night. A copy of this judgment and order may be sent to the following authorities and insurance companies and they are directed to furnish a compliance report in this Court about compliance of these directions of this Court within a period of 8 weeks from today:
(i) The Chief Secretary of the State.
(ii) The Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(iii) The Director General of Police.
(iv) The Regional Manager of Insurance Companies viz. United India Insurance Company Ltd., The New India Assurance Company Ltd., National Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., at Jaipur/Jodhpur.
Put up on 14.07.2009 in Chambers for verifying compliance report.