G.C. Garg, J.@mdashThis is claimants'' first appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated November 21, 1984 for
enhancement of compensation a warded on account of death of one Hira Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4
herein.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on February 2, 1984, Hira Singh was going to his village on a bicycle when Bus No. HRM/8044 belonging to Haryana
Roadways, Rewari and driven by respondent No. 4 struck against the bicycle of Hira Singh from behind, who fell down, received injuries and died
at the spot. The claimants alleged in the petition filed u/s 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act that at the time of death, the deceased was earning Rs.
1,00,000/- per month and thus, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus interest etc. Though the respondents in their written
statement denied the accident with the bus in question and their liability to pay any compensation, the Tribunal after considering the entire evidence
led by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/- in all by way on compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition i.e. February 25,1984. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, flue claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. It has been found by the Tribunal that at the time of death the age of the deceased was 55 years and he WHS earning Rs. 1000/- per month as
his salary being employed as Mechanic in the Railways. The Tribunal further found that the deceased was supporting his wife and three children
from his income and therefore, he must at least be spending60% of his income upon thorn. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the dependency of the
appellants on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 600/- per month or Rs. 7200/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of five, apparently for the reason
that since at the time of death the deceased was 55 years of age and he being a government servant would have retired after five years, the
Tribunal thereby calculated Rs. 36,000/- as compensation uptill the age of 60. The Tribunal calculated another sum of Rs. 6000/- on the premises
that even after retirement the; deceased would have got pension and was likely to do some work and thus, would have supported his wife for at
least another five years. Assuming the caning of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 200/- per month after the retirement and thereby placing the
dependency of the wife upon the deceased at Rs. 100/- per month, a sum of Rs. 6000/-, as stated above, was calculated. This is how, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/- in all to the appellants as compensation on account of death of Hira Singh, and also draw proportions as
to what amount the wife would get and what the sons of the deceased.
4. After considering, the entire matter and going through the award, I am of the view that the Tribunal erred in imposing a cut of 40% on account of
expenses to be incurred by the deceased on himself The deceased was getting Rs. 1000/- per month as his salary and besides himself, he was to
support his wife and three children between the age group of 13 to 18 years. He must have been contributing a sum of Rs. 750/- per month to his
family. The cut of 40% imposed by the Tribunal on account of expenses to be incurred by the deceased on himself is excessive. The amount to be
collected at the rate of Rs.750/- per month or Rs. 9000/- per annum would come to Rs. 45,000/- by applying the multiplier of five as the
deceased would have been in service for at least five years more, he being 55 years of age at the time of death. Moreover, since the deceased was
earning Rs. 1000/- by way of his salary, there can be no doubt that on his retirement he would have got about a sum of Rs. 400 to 450 on account
of his pension. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the deceased was not enjoying good health. Therefore, besides pension, he would
have earned something by doing some work. There can also be no manner of doubt that life expectancy in our country has gone high. Taking all
these facts into consideration, I am of the view that even later retirement the deceased must have contributed at least Rs. 250/- per month to his
wife and three children and thus, a sum on Rs. 3,000/- per annum. While agreeing with the observations of the Tribunal that the deceased would
have lived five years more after his retirement, I find that the deceased would have contributed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 3000 multiplied by five)
after his retirement. In these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/ In all as compensation on account of death of Hira
Singh deceased, including the amount granted u/s 92-A of the Motors Vehicles Act. The appellants will be entitled to get the enhanced amount of
compensation in the same proportion as has been allowed by the Tribunal. They will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on
the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. February 25,1984, till the date of payment.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed to the ex tent indicated above by modifying the award of the Tribunal accordingly. No costs.