D.P.S. Chauhan, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.12.1997 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 57 of 1995 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
2. An accident took place on 13.6.1995 with the truck, bearing No. MBJ 8633 wherein Mahendra Kumar Sahu, aged 32 years, died. The deceased was driving his Hero Honda motor cycle No. MOJ 9102 and was going from Chhindwara to Pach-marhi. The appellant No. 1 Sangeeta is the widow of deceased, appellant No. 2 Aman Kumar is the son of the deceased and the appellant No. 3 Nekwati is the mother of the deceased. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation.
3. Deceased Mahendra Kumar Sahu was a retail foodgrain dealer with small capital and was maintaining the appellants-claimants. No evidence was produced by the appellants regarding the income of the deceased and the Tribunal acted on a guesswork assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 (annual income at Rs. 24,000). Out of the amount assessed as income of the deceased, half was taken by the Tribunal to have been spent by the deceased on himself. This finding was recorded by the Tribunal looking to the business of the deceased. Rest half of the income was held by the Tribunal to have been spent by the deceased in maintaining the family members, i.e., the claimants.
4. Heard Mr. Subodh Kathar, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants made threefold submissions: (1) that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,000 per month; (2) that the Tribunal wrongly deducted half of the income as spent by the deceased on himself; and (3) that the multiplier applied was not correct as the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years.
5. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.
6. So far as the first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, we do not find on record any material or evidence which may justify the submission of the learned Counsel as the appellants did not lead any evidence in this regard. Whatever was assessed by the Tribunal was not on the basis of any definite evidence but was a guesswork and it would not be fair to apply a second guesswork over the guesswork. In the circumstances, we do not consider it reasonable to hold that the assessment made by the Tribunal regarding income of the deceased is unjustified. This submission deserves to be rejected.
7. Second submission is that half of the income has been wrongly deducted by the Tribunal towards the amount which the deceased might have spent on himself. It is not a rule of thumb. The Tribunal has to consider various aspects and specially the nature of the job which the deceased was carrying. Here the deceased was a businessman and a businessman may spend more amount on himself than on the family members. It depends upon the nature and circumstances of the business. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Second submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants also deserve to be rejected.
8. The third submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is regarding the multiplier. According to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, we consider it reasonable to hold that it requires change and it requires no finding to be recorded. It depends on the finding already recorded. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 15 which in the circumstances we consider appropriate to change to 17 instead of 15. Accordingly, the calculation of compensation would also change. Applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation would be Rs. 2,04,000. The amount of compensation as awarded under other heads need no interference. As such, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 2,19,000 (rupees two lakh nineteen thousand) which includes loss of earning, expenditure incurred in the performance of last rites of the deceased, consortium, etc. Over this amount, the appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award is modified to the extent stated above in para 8. No orders as to costs.
