JUDGMENT
Malik, J.
(1) The only grievance of the appellant Kalawatin this appeal is that she was not allowed compensation as was required by law and justice. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that Kalawati, the mother of the deceased, was the only person who was dependent upon the deceased and assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,400 with costs of the petition. The respondents were granted two months time to make the payment, failing which the petitioner appellant herein was made entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of award till the date of realisation.
(2) As far as facts are concerned, suffice is to say that the claim arose as a result of an accident on 5th of May 1975 at about 1.20 p.m. when the deceased was riding a bicycle and got involved into a motor accident with bus No. Dlp 1596 as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The bus belonged to D.T.C. The deceased was crushed to death on the spot.
(3) The appellant and one of her son had claimed that on the date of incident the deceased was aged about 18 years and being a motor mechanic his average monthly income was about Rs. 500. They claim to be the dependents of the deceased. All the averments raised in the claim petition were controverter by the respondents and it was stated that the accident did not occur due to any fault of the respondents.
(4) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no challenge to the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2 who, on the relevant date, was working as an employee of respondent No. 1 and was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant Kalawati fairly conceded that he is not concerned with the appellant No. 2 and there is no challenge to the finding that the brother of the deceased appellant No. 2 herein is not the legal representative of the deceased nor can he be held to be dependent on the deceased. The findings on these two issues ought to be confirmed as there are no cross-objections. The learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded this position.
(5) The only controversy which remains to be resolved is to find out whether the compensation allowed by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of this case is just and proper. Before going into this aspect of the controversy, I must at once point out that the finding of the Tribunal about the appellant having failed to prove the income of the deceased, in my view, is unassailed. The appellant had asserted that the deceased was working as a motor mechanic on some shop. Excepting the bald statement of the appellant, no other evidence was led to show that the deceased was working as a motor mechanic and that his earnings were about Rs. 500 per month. It was in that situation that the Tribunal took recourse to determine the monthly income of the deceased on different principles. I must, therefore, make it clear that this finding of the Tribunal that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased was working as a motor mechanic or that his income was Rs. 500 cannot be disturbed.
(6) Now faced with this situation, the Tribunal took resort to the guidelines contained in different judicial pronouncements to determine the monthly income of the deceased and thereafter it took into account the average age in the family, the monthly contributions of the deceased to the dependents and then arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 18,000 as compensation. For lump sum payment 20 per cent deductions were made and the remaining amount of Rs. 14,400 was awarded as compensation.
(7) The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on the failure of the appellant to prove the monthly income of the deceased found that even if the deceased was treated as an ordinary unskilled labourer, his monthly income could not be less than Rs. 200 per month and his monthly contribution towards the dependent was fixed at Rs. 100 per month. In my view, there Is no infirmity about this conclusion particularly when it is kept in mind that the appellant who is the mother of the deceased was also dependent on her other son. It was assumed by the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 200, though there was no evidence that he was earning Rs. 200. The average span of life expectancy was taken at 70 years and then this Rs. 100 was multiplied by 12 into 15. I fully agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier ought to have been fixed at 16 which makes a difference of Rs. 1200. This Rs. 1200 was to be added to Rs. 18,000 which makes it Rs. 19,200 in all. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, and the position has been frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite side, that deduction at the rate of 20 per cent for lump sum payment is not consistent with the law as it stands at present and it is not admissible. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 19,200 as compensation. I am told that Rs. 14,400 has already been paid. The remaining amount shall be deposited in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within one month from the date of this order, failing which the appellant is allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the remaining unpaid amount from the date of this order till the date of final realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid modification. The appellant shall also be entitled to the costs of the appeal.