S.C. Sinho, J.@mdashThis appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad in Claim Case No. 13 of 2002.
2. Claimants'' case in short is this that deceased J.K. Choudhary was working as Principal of the Government Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Mahavidyalaya, Babai and his salary was Rs. 24,321 per month. That on 31.12.2001 at about 5.20 p.m. when the deceased was waiting for bus on the side of road, respondent No. 2 while driving rashly and negligently jeep No. MP 09-S 7360 dashed the deceased J.K. Choudhary. As a result of said accident, the deceased suffered various grievous injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Hoshangabad where he died. The aforesaid offending jeep was owned by respondent No. 1 and at the time of accident was insured with respondent No. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,51,000 with 9 per cent interest per annum towards compensation to the claimants for the death of J.K. Choudhary.
3. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. Claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. No other issue being under challenge, we are required only to address with regard to the facet of enhancement on compensation.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that compensation awarded is just and proper and does not deserve enhancement.
5. Learned Counsel for the claimants has argued strenuously that the deceased was working as Principal of Government Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Mahavidyalaya, Babai and he died at the age of 59 years. He has further argued that even after the retirement, as a tutor or in some private college he could work for another 20 years. The correct multiplier was also not used by the Tribunal. In this case, this is admitted position that deceased was aged about 59 years. Claimants have filed Exh. Dl, L.P.C. of J.K. Choudhary, according to which, his actual payment was described as under:
Basic pay - Rs. 17,460
DA - Rs. 6,635
HRA - Rs. 226
Total - Rs. 24,321
Deductions
GPF - Rs. 2,870
GIS - Rs. 160
Pr. Tax - Rs. 231
The learned Counsel for the claimants has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly held quantum of dependency amount.
6. The salary certificate shows that salary of deceased was Rs. 24,321 per month. As per L.P.C, Exh. Dl, claimants are not entitled for HRA, professional tax and income tax which were deducted from his income. Learned Counsel for the claimants has further admitted in light of L.P.C, Exh. D1, that the deceased used to pay about Rs. 28,000 as income tax. Further, he used to get HRA Rs. 226 x 12 = Rs. 2,712 and about Rs. 2,200 as professional tax used to be deducted from his pay. Therefore, after deducting income tax Rs. 28,000, professional tax Rs. 2,200 and HRA Rs. 2,712 from his yearly income, deceased actually was earning Rs. 2,58,940 per annum. The deceased must be spending 1/3rd amount on himself as such, the dependency on this score would come to Rs. 1,72,627 per annum.
7. Learned Counsel for the claimants has further argued that Tribunal has wrongly used the multiplier of 3. He has submitted that at least multiplier of 18 should be used in this case because deceased was Principal in a college and even after retirement he could keep himself engaged in some private college. Admittedly, the deceased was born on 18.10.1942 and his age on the date of accident was 59 years. He was to retire after 3 years.
8. As per Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the correct multiplier for the age group above 55 years and below 60 years is 8 even when deceased was retiring after 3 years. Meaning thereby, as per Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 8 has taken care of all future earnings. Therefore, Tribunal has wrongly used the multiplier of 3 and as per this Schedule only multiplier of 8 should be used. Thus, total amount of compensation on this score would be Rs. 1,72,627 x 8 = Rs. 13,81,016. To which we add a further sum of Rs. 10,000 on three counts, i.e., loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Therefore, in toto, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,91,016 (rupees thirteen lakh ninety-one thousand and sixteen). The differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal till the date of deposit before it. Insurance company, the respondent No. 3, is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of order passed today. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount keeping in view the law laid down in the case of
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
