JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This appeal is filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The respondent No. 1, D.T.C. has also filed an appeal bearing No. Fao 397/80.
(2) The accident took place on 17.7.1978 in which Rajiv Bhardwaj was killed in a bus accident. The deceased was going on his cycle to his College, Viz. Shyam Lal College When he was nearing the College and was in front of Gandhi Memorial Higher Secondary School, he was knocked down by the D.T.C. Bus No. Dlp 58. The claimants submit that the Dtc bus was coming on the wrong side from the opposite direction. The Fir was filed after the accident and in the criminal case, the driver of the bus was convicted. The FIR. the post-mortem report, the site plan and the mechanical inspection report were produced in the evidence. These reports go to show that the version of the claimants was correct. The bus was on the wrong side and hit the cyclist from the left front side. The fact of the accident and the manner in which it took place had been stated in detail by the eye-witnesses, viz. Public Witness /2, Public Witness /3 and Public Witness /4. I am taken through the evidence of these eye-witnesses and I am satisfied that there is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. The evidence of the various reports stated above and the evidence of the eye-witnesses leave me in no doubt that the said D.T.C. bus was responsible for causing the accident and the death of Rajiv Bhardwaj.
(3) On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that it was the deceased who in confusion slipped from his cycle and hit against the bus. There is hardly any evidence produced by the respondents. The Conductor of the bus, as noted by the Tribunal, could not state anything more than the fact that there was an accident. He had not stated anything to show that the cyclist was either confused or slipped from the cycle and on his own hit the bus. The finding of the Tribunal in so far as the liability of the bus for the rash and negligent driving and causing the death of Rajiv Bhardwaj is, therefore, to be hald. FAO. 397/80 is, therefore, dismissed.
(4) That leads us to the question of compensation. The deceased was only 17 years old at the time of the accident and was admitted in the B.Sc. 1st year of the Shyam Lal College. He was intending to be an Engineer, like his elder brother. Two of his sisters are also post-graduates. Considering this family background, it can be reasonably expected that the deceased would have pursued his studies and career in more prosperous avenues. However, since there cannot be any definite avenues or the material, the Court has to rely on some reasonable options. The Tribunal was not. therefore, wrong in holding that the deceased would have at least started his career as an L D.C. The Tribunal was, however, wrong in assuming that his salary would have been Rs. 300.00 or Rs. 350.00 per month. It is now well-known that after the Third Pay Commission and the subsequent increases in the D.A. the salary and allowances of an L D C are at least Rs. 700.00 per month.
(5) The Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier. This is not unreasonable considering the fact that the father was of 49 years of age and was serving in the Railways as a U.D.C. at that time. The question of the multiplier has to be considered in the context of financial dependence. When the father himself was earning the multiplier cannot be too high because the responsibility of running the family is primarily that of the father and not of the son, who was only 17 years old.
(6) The Tribunal was, however, wrong in making further deductions in the contribution which the deceased would have to the family. There is an error in the approach of the Tribunal in this matter. If the future chances of marriage and rearing of the family by the deceased are to be considered, then, at the same time, the rise in the salary by way of promotion and prospects of higher earning would also have to be considered. All these are the matters of conjecture and, therefore, a reasonable approach has to be found out ultimately to arrive at a just compensation.
(7) Considering the fact that the deceased would have earned Rs.700.00 per month, it is reasonable to hold that he would have spent l/3rd of his income on himself and would have contributed a sum of Rs.550.00 per month for the benefit of the family. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 82, 500.00 towards the compensation. They would bo further entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till the date of payment. Since future rises are not taken into account, there shall be no deduction for the lump sum payment.
(8) The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 29, 700.00 to the claimants. This Court directed the D.T.C. to deposit the amount with a direction to the petitioner to withdraw the same on the bank guarantee. The said amount of Rs.29,700.00 has been deposited in the fixed deposited in the State Bank of India, carrying interest.
(9) The claimants would be entitled to simple interest from the date of the application till the 1st of May, 1981 and at the same rate on the additional compensation awarded by this Order till the final payment. The payment shall be made within two months from today. The State Bank of India, Vijay Nagar Branch, New Delhi, is directed to release theF.D.R. after its maturity. No order as to costs.