Nandkishore and Another vs Swaran Singh and Others

K.P. Bhandari, J.—This is the claimants'' appeal against the order dated 24.12.1987, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat.

Mohan Lal deceased was working as a Medical Representative. On 25.1.1987, Mohan Lal along with Bhushan Kumar was coming on a pillion. The accident took place with Bus No. DEP-7662 near Murthal. Mohan Lal died in the accident and Bhushan Kumar too. Mother and father of the deceased filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. It was claimed that the deceased Mohan Lal was serving with M/s Eupharma Laboratories, Bombay, and was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month.

The respondents controverted the claim of the claimants. While discussing issues Nos. 1 to 3, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, considered the evidence on record. According to the claimants'' Counsel, deceased Mohan Lal was earning Rs. 550/- per month as salary and Rs. 25/- as per-working-day allowance and he was also entitled to travelling allowances. The claimants have produced a certificate from the Company. According to the certificate, deceased Mohan Lal was drawing salary at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. In addition, he was allowed Rs. 25/- as allowance per-working-day. In this way, the monthly emoluments of the deceased come to Rs. 1,200/-.

There is no rebuttal to the evidence regarding the income of the deceased. So, the income shown in the certificate issued by the Company has to be accepted. In this view of the matter, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 14,400/-.

The Tribunal, while determining the quantum of compensation, considered the dependency of the claimants only at Rs. 300/- per month and applied multiplier of 10. In my view, the Tribunal was in error in determining the loss to the estate. The deceased was a young man and he was serving as a Medical Representative and was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. So, his annual income comes to Rs. 14,400/-. Normally, he would have spent one-third of his emoluments on his person. The remaining amount he would have spent for his parents. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 9,600/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 10. This is not justified. This Court has uniformly applied the multiplier of 16.

Mr. Mohanti, learned Counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on 1988 (1) P.L.R. 104, 1981 (1) P.L.R. 197 and 1989 (1) P.L.R. 512. In the first two Cases, multiplier of 20 was applied. I had an occasion to consider the question regarding proper multiplier to be applied in such cases. The deceased had good prospects to rise in life. In this view of the matter I apply the multiplier of 16 in this case. Disagreeing with the findings of the Tribunal, I determine annual dependency by applying a multiplier of 16 to the two-third of the annual income of the deceased. The Supreme Court has allowed interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Accordingly, I allow interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application.

Learned Counsel for the respondents strongly contended that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was just and fair. I do not agree with him. This appeal is accordingly partly accepted with costs throughout and claim of the appellants is allowed in terms of the judgment, referred to above.