JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The appellants are the parents (Appellants No.4 & 5) of the deceased Vinod Kumar Dhiri. Appellant No.1 is his widow and Appellants No.2 & 3 are his two daughters. The deceased was sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle when it met with an accident on 26th October, 1983. A truck driven by Respondent No.1 hit the rear of the motor cycle as a result of which the rider of the motor cycle as well as Vinod Kumar fell down. The wheels of the truck passed over Vinod Kumar and he died on the spot.
2. At that time, the deceased was of 36 years of age and was working in a private company and earning Rs.1,100/- p.m. as salary besides other benefits such as provident fund etc.
3. The legal representatives of Vinod Kumar filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and claimed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribunal”) framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar Dhiri died as a result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HRK-3842 on the part of respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of the deceased?
3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom?
4. Relief.
5. In regard to Issue No.1, it was held that the death of Vinod Kumar was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Respondent No.1.
6. With regard to Issue No.2, it was held that the Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Vinod Kumar.
7. As regards Issues No.3 & 4, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence before it, particularly the statement of PW 7, namely Ashok Kumar, Senior Office Assistant, Weston Electronics, concluded that the total emoluments of deceased were Rs.1,210 per month. It was proved that deceased was 36 years of age and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the view that appropriate multiplier would be 16. The dependency was taken as Rs. 800/- per month and interest at the rate of 12% per month was awarded. On this basis, the entire compensation due to the Appellants was assessed at Rs.1,33,600/-.
8. The Appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors. .
10. The facts of Susamma Thomas are more or less in pari materia with the facts of the present appeal in as much as the deceased in that case was about 39 years of age and was earning Rs.1,032/- per month. It may be recalled that the deceased in the present case was about 36 years of age and was earning Rs.1,210 per month. The deceased in the present appeal was an engineer holding a steady job.
11. For the purpose of awarding compensation and taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, the Supreme Court took a sum of Rs.2,000/- as his gross monthly income. While no calculation is given on how this figure has been arrived at, it appears that the actual income of the deceased, that is, Rs.1032/- per month was apparently doubled to arrive at a figure of Rs.2,000/-.
12. Adopting the same formula, in the present appeal, if the salary of the deceased, that is, Rs.1,210/- per month is doubled it will come to Rs.2,400/- per month. Out of this, if one-third is deducted towards his personal living expenses leaving a sum of Rs.1,600/- per month as the loss of dependency. On an annual basis, this works out to Rs.19,200/- .
13. The multiplier awarded by the learned Tribunal is 16 and on this basis the total amount of compensation is Rs.3,07,200/- (19,200 X 16 = 3,07,200).
14. Accordingly, the appeal for enhancement is allowed to the above extent.
15. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the Appellants will be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,07,200/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till payment. The Appellants will be entitled to compensation in the same ratio awarded by the learned Tribunal.
16. Appeal stands disposed of.
Cross objections No.46 of 1992.
17. There is no one present to press the cross objections on behalf of the insurance company.
18. Dismissed for non-prosecution.