Harbans Lal, J.
1. These two civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Act') are directed against the common award dated 11.10.1995 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Tribunal'). Therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 13.5.1993 deceased Rakesh Kumar and injured Madan Singh were coming on a bicycle from Harmada to Jaipur City. A bus No. RJ 14-P 0740 which was owned by Krishna Motor Service and was being driven by Balbir Singh came from behind and dashed against their bicycle by driving it rashly and negligently, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Rakesh succumbed to the injuries and Madan Singh sustained serious multiple injuries. A criminal case was got registered and two claim petitions were filed. One claim petition being M.A.C. No. 284 of 1993 was filed by the parents, brother and sister of deceased Rakesh Kumar claiming a compensation of Rs. 19,31,500 and another claim petition was filed by Madan Singh, the injured, being M.A.C. No. 312 of 1993 claiming Rs. 4,95,000 as compensation against the driver, owner and insurance company. The driver did not file any reply to the claim petition. The owner pleaded that the driver was driving the bus properly and accident had occurred on account of negligence and violation of traffic rules by the deceased and the injured. It was also pleaded that the bus in question was insured with the insurance company. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed as against him. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, also denied its liability and pleaded that the accident had occurred on account of the mistake and negligence of the cyclist and unless it was proved that the driver was having a valid licence at the time of alleged accident, the company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. As both the claim cases arose from the same accident, they were consolidated and after taking evidence of the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 11.10.1995. The claimants in M.A.C. No. 284 of 1993 were awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,000 for the death of Rakesh Kumar in the accident and the claimant in M.A.C. No. 312 of 1993 was awarded a sum of Rs. 57,300 as compensation for his injuries. Aggrieved by the said award these two appeals have been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 509 of 1996, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is too inadequate which should be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 as has been held in case of Laxman v. Nahar Singh, 2002 ACJ 1734 (Rajasthan); Haji Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC); Shyam Lal v. Rajendra Kumar, 2001 ACJ 215 (Rajasthan); Hanuman Sant v. Madan Lal, 1998 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan) and Deep Singh v. Navratan, 2002 ACJ 205 (Rajasthan). Learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and have also perused the impugned award as also the authorities cited at the Bar and the record.
5. In the instant case deceased Rakesh is found to be 20 years of age at the time of the accident and he was working with Vishnu Engineering Works and his income has been found to be Rs. 1,000 p.m. He was unmarried at that time. The economic dependency of his parents has been worked out to Rs. 500 p.m. and a lump sum amount of Rs. 80,000 has been awarded as compensation. But AW 1 Mool Chand has stated that he was earning Rs. 3,000 p.m. and was spending on himself about Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 p.m. and Rs. 5,000 were spent on his funeral. AW 2 Lal Chand has stated that deceased Rakesh had worked with him for one year before his death and he was paying him Rs. 2,500 p.m. Thereafter, he had started working on a salary of Rs. 3,000 p.m. with Vishnu Engineering Works. The learned Tribunal has held that the statement of Lal Chand, AW 2, is not reliable because Om Engineering is not a registered establishment. Learned Tribunal has not given any cogent and valid reason for coming to the conclusion that monthly income of deceased was Rs. 1,000, especially when the witnesses have stated that he was getting initially Rs. 2,500 p.m. and thereafter Rs. 3,000 p.m., there is no rebuttal to this evidence. Learned Tribunal has also not properly worked out the economic dependency of the claimants. Learned Tribunal has neither applied the unit method nor has applied the generally accepted formula of one-third deduction for expenses on himself. The judgment of the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. Relying upon the case of Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, 1998 ACJ 848 (SC), in the case of death of an 18 years' old boy belonging to the labour class who was run over by truck leaving behind his destitute mother and two minor brothers, compensation of Rs. 40,000 was awarded, but the same was enhanced by the Hon'ble Apex Court to Rs. 1,50,000 taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned had he survived considering his future economic prospects.
6. In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC), the deceased was 20 years of age and was a student of B .Sc. 1st year, the claimants were his mother, sisters and brothers which was disallowed, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court after reappreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses held that the truck driver was primarily responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.
7. In the case of Shyam Lal v. Rajendra Kumar, 2001 ACJ 215 (Rajasthan), the deceased was 18 years of age and was a student. His father was aged 53 years and mother was 48 years and he had two sisters. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 86,400 which was enhanced in appeal to Rs. 1,50,000 relying upon the earlier case of Hanuman Sant v. Madan Lal, 1998 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan), wherein the deceased was about 16 years of age and was a student of 8th class. The Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 58,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 and in doing so judgments reported in Haji Zainullah Khan's case, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC) and Hanuman Sant's case, 1998 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan), were followed. In case of Deep Singh v. Navratan, 2002 ACJ 205 (Rajasthan), the deceased was 23 years of age and was an unmarried youth. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 81,600 which was enhanced by the High Court. In the instant case also even if we do not go into the question of actual income of the deceased, and the economic dependency of claimants, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 as has been done in the above said authorities where there was either no evidence of any income of the deceased or the income was alleged to be less than Rs. 1,000.
8. In this view of the matter, therefore, this claim petition deserves to be allowed and the compensation deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000.
9. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 525 of 1996, the injured sustained fracture of his hip bone and remained admitted in S.M.S. Hospital for 14 days. He had to undergo an operation. Thereafter he had to be admitted to ESI Hospital where he remained admitted for about 7 months and after operation a steel rod was inserted and bone-grafting was also done. He had to remain in bed due to plaster for 5 months. He suffered pain and agony. According to the evidence that has come on record, he was working as a turner on contract and was earning Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,500 p.m. His permanent disablement has been assessed as 29 per cent. The Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that his monthly income was Rs. 1,500 only. The loss on account of his remaining admitted in the hospital was Rs. 10,500 and thus, a total amount of Rs. 57,300 has been awarded.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount of compensation awarded in this case is too inadequate which should be suitably enhanced. He has relied upon the case of Shyam Ratan v. Jawahar Lal Sharma, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 559 of 1999; decided on 13.12.2001, wherein the permanent disability was to the extent of 19.84 per cent and his right lower limb had been shortened by half inch. Even then the amount of compensation of Rs. 48,760 as awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000. So, following the aforesaid precedent and looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000.
11. In the result, both these appeals are allowed and partially modifying the awards passed by the learned Tribunal below in these two claim petitions, the amount of compensation awarded in each claim case is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000. The order of the Tribunal with regard to interest having been not challenged, is confirmed.