JUDGMENT
D.N. Baruah, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1994 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, in M.A.C. Case No. 208 (K) of 1989 awarding compensation to the claimant of an amount of Rs. 45,000/- together with an interest of 10 per cent from the date of the claim petition till payment.
2. The facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated as under.
On 20.1.1989 at about 2.30 p.m. while the claimant’s father was coming as a pillion rider in scooter No. ASU 4165 from Beltola, was hit by a police vehicle No. ASU 1003. He sustained head injury and he was immediately hospitalised. A little less than a month thereafter, i.e., on 15.2.1989 the claimant’s father died at the Neurological Research Centre, Guwahati. He was aged 53 at the time of his death. The claimant, thereafter, filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the ground of mental shock, loss of company, consortium, loss of earning.
3. Written statement was filed by the respondents denying the obligation to pay the compensation on the ground that there was no rash and negligent driving of the said police vehicle. Witnesses were also examined by the Tribunal and thereafter passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 45,000/- only to the claimant. Hence the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.P. Bora, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, for the respondents.
5. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the Tribunal erred in law in giving an award of Rs. 45,000/- only to the claimant on the ground that only claimant made the claim. He submits that the claim petition was in fact filed on behalf of all the heirs. This fact, the learned Counsel submits, was totally overlooked by the Tribunal. The next submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that the multiplier system was not properly applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10. According to him the multiplier should be of 15 in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court as well as of this court. Learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month most arbitrarily in utter disregard to the materials available in the record.
6. Mr. Bora, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal was fully justified in adopting the multiplier of 10 in its finding considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the claimant failed to prove the monthly income of the deceased inasmuch as had the income of the deceased been Rs. 5,000/- per month, surely he would have paid income tax. But no evidence is led to that effect. The Tribunal, therefore, did not err in reducing the monthly income. Mr. Bora, however, submits that monthly income of Rs. 2,500 is itself on the higher side. Mr. Bora also submits that expenditure of the deceased was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the judgment. The finding of the Tribunal was that the deceased was required to spend at least Rs. 500/- for his medicines, etc., as the deceased was a diabetic and hypertension patient. Learned Government Advocate submits that this aspect was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that an amount of Rs. 2,000/-would have been spent by the deceased for the maintenance of his family was erroneous as the deceased would have spent some more money for his living over and above his expenditure in medicine.
7. We have gone through the impugned judgment. In the judgment the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,500/-. No appeal has been preferred against this finding. Therefore, we are not inclined to disturb this finding of fact. However, we find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Bora that the Tribunal was wrong in not taking into account the amount he would have spent for living. Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee has not been able to counter this argument. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have added some amount towards the expenses for living. After going through the entire facts, in our opinion, the deceased would have spent Rs. 300/- for his own living. This was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, Rs. 300/- should have been deducted out of Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, we modify the amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,700/-. We do not find any reason to change the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Mr. Bora also submits that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the uncertainty of life. But we find there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this ground.
8. After taking into consideration all these facts and by applying the multiplier of 10, in our opinion, the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- together with the awarded amount of Rs. 30,000/- should be payable to the heirs of the deceased. Mr. Bora does not challenge that aspect of the matter. Therefore, we hold that all the heirs of the deceased will get Rs. 2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate granted by the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to pay the amount as early as possible at any rate within a period of 2 months from today and interest at the rate of 10 per cent will carry from the date of filing. However, if the amount is not paid by the respondents within two months the rate of interest will be enhanced to 15 per cent.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.