JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 13.8.1987, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant against the order of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short called ‘the Tribunal’), dated 5.1.1983, was dismissed.
2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated thus:
Raj Kumar while driving a scooter bearing No. CHA 2093 on 2.8.1981, was hit by a bus bearing No. CHW 3565 driven by Gurjit Singh, respondent No. 3. The bus belonged to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As a result of the accident, Raj Kumar sustained injuries and ultimately died the same day. Raj Kumar at the time of accident was 22 years of age and drawing a salary of Rs. 841 per month. He was a bachelor. His mother Jamna Devi, who is a widow, filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the death of her son, being dependent on him. The claim was contested by the respondents by alleging negligence on the part of the deceased.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gurjit Singh, driver, respondent No. 3?
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
(3) Relief.
The Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gurjit Singh. Under issue No. 2, it was found that the dependency of the mother was to the extent of Rs. 200/- per month. Consequently, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- by applying a multiplier of 10 having regard to her age being 60 years. The claimant was thus held entitled to Rs. 24,000 as compensation besides interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
4. The appeal at the instance of the claimant was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. There is no challenge to the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No. 1. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the claimant is entitled to more compensation than the one awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned single Judge. As already noticed, the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 841/- per month. He was living with his mother who is claimant herein. His minor brother and a minor sister were also living with the deceased. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that a brother or a sister in the presence of mother is not entitled to compensation on account of the death of their brother even if they are dependent upon him. This matter stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Hans Raj v. Neelam Chopra 1986 ACJ 152 (P&H).
6. Now adverting to the quantum of compensation to which the appellant is entitled, it may be noticed that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the deceased could be expected to spend Rs. 250/- per month by way of his personal expenses and he would have been paying about a sum of Rs. 600/-to his mother, who was dependent on him. While granting compensation, a further cut of Rs. 400/- could not be imposed on the figure, of Rs. 600/- only on the ground that a minor brother and a minor sister were also living with the deceased at the time of his death and thereby it could not have been concluded that the mother was dependent on the deceased to the extent of Rs. 200/- per month only. For determining the dependency of the mother to the extent of Rs. 200 only, the learned Tribunal gave another reason also. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal that since the unmarried brother and sister of the deceased have neither joined as claimants nor have been impleaded as respondents, the mother cannot claim compensation on their behalf. As already noticed, a brother or a sister is not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in the presence of their mother. Therefore, the brother and sister of the deceased have rightly not filed the claim petition or sought to be impleaded as respondents therein. Thus, the dependency in our view cannot be determined in the manner indicated by the Tribunal. The deceased was handing over Rs. 600/- p.m. to his mother and thus, she was dependent upon him to the same extent. How she was thereafter utilising the amount for maintaining her could not be taken into consideration for slashing down the amount of compensation. Once it is found that the deceased was paying Rs. 600/- per month to his mother, it has to be inferred that she was dependent upon him to that extent. There is no evidence in rebuttal in that behalf. Merely because a brother and a sister were also staying with the mother of the deceased is no ground to slash the dependency and consequently we award compensation accordingly. We thus hold that the appellant was dependent on the deceased to the extent of Rs. 600/- per month which comes to Rs. 7,200/- per annum. The age of the appellant at the time of accident was 60 years and consequently, a multiplier of 10 has been rightly applied and we see no reason to apply a higher multiplier. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to compensation of Rs. 72,000/- instead of Rs. 24,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 10 per cent only. The interest at the rate of 12 per cent ought to have been awarded on the amount of compensation awarded. We find merit in the contention. Accordingly, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation payable to her.
8. For the foregoing reasons, appellant is held entitled to recover Rs. 72,000/- as compensation on account of the death of her son, instead of Rs. 24,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the respondents who will be liable to pay this amount jointly and severally along with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The award of the learned Tribunal and the order of the learned single Judge are modified to this extent. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is also held entitled to have the costs of this appeal which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.