JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surendranagar decided several motor accident claims by a common order dated 14.3.1975 including the M. A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974. The present First Appeal has been filed against the ^ order relating to M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974; decided on 14.3.1975. The deceased Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed was about 45 years of age at the relevant time. He was preparing slippers and selling the same at Ahmedabad. The case of the claimants was that he was earning Rs. 400/- p.m. He met with an accident after midnight of 17.3.1973 on the National Highway between Sagodara and Limbdi at about 2 a.m. Taxi No. GTX 347 owned by one Shadul Gandalal was being driven by Premji Bhanji. The vehicle left Ahmedabad for Rajkot with seven passengers therein. One Jayantilal Kanjibhai, the sole survivor from amongst the occupants of the taxi, was in the rear seat. His uncle Jeraj was also in the rear seat. One Vasantlal, whom Jayantilal came to know at the S.T. Stand, also sat in that taxi. Three persons were sitting in the front seat alongwith the driver and four were in the rear seats. Mohmedbin Abdulla Arab, Lallubhai Devchand, Noormohmed Allarakha and Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed were there in addition to the driver Premji. Jayantilal, who is the sole survivor, who was asleep at the time of the accident, became unconscious after the accident and regained consciousness after two days in the hospital. Therefore, the claimants are not in a position to give version as to how the accident took place, The taxi collided with public carrier No. GTY 3573 driven by Praful Dolatram Jagtap. The ownership of the public carrier is in dispute. After the accident the driver of the public carrier went to the Limbdi Police Station at about 3 a.m. and gave the information about the accident. The heirs of Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed filed the M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974. Thus, there is no dispute about the vehicles involved in the accident and that Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed was one of the deceased.
2. Regarding income of the deceased the oral evidence of Kulsum, witness No. 19 and Ashraf, witness No. 20, i.e., the wife and the cousin of the deceased respectively have come on record. Kulsum has stated that her husband, who was preparing slippers and selling the same, used to send her Rs. 400/- p.m. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased could not be assessed to be more than Rs. 200/- p.m. and taking notice of the fact that he had to maintain himself, his wife and four children, the total number of units comes out to be four and one unit will be equivalent to Rs. 50/-. Thus, deducting Rs. 50/- from Rs. 200/-, the dependency value was computed to be Rs. 150/- p.m. which was multiplied by 12 and the dependency value per year was computed to be Rs. 1,800/-. this annual dependency value multiplied by 12 comes to Rs. 21,600/-. By adding a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as the conventional amount, total compensation of Rs. 24,600/- was awarded.
3. Aggrieved by this order the claimants in the M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974 have preferred this first appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act read With Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been argued that the Tribunal has p committed an error in computing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 200/- only. The only ground which has been given by the Tribunal in disbelieving the statement of Kulsum is that she did not produce the letters which are alleged to have been sent to her by her husband while sending the amount and further that the persons, to whom the slippers were being sold out, had not been examined. I have considered the available record and have gone through the reasons given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Merely because the letters, which were sent to Kulsum by her deceased husband, were not produced, the same could hardly be a ground to disbelieve her statement that she was in receipt of Rs. 400/- p.m. from her husband. It is a matter of common knowledge that such routine letters are never preserved with such care so as to be produced before Courts some time and those persons, who are engaged in a petty job of preparing slippers, sell out such slippers to different persons and no record of such persons can be available with a person engaged in such a petty job of preparing slippers. These reasons could hardly be sufficient to disbelieve the statement of the wife of the deceased. Moreover, witness Ashraf, cousin of the deceased, has also corroborated that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- p.m. Therefore, conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal in taking the income to be Rs. 200/- p.m. does not appear to be correct.
4. The Tribunal has also noted that according to the post-mortem report the deceased was aged about 35 years. However, it has proceeded to take the age of the deceased as 45 years and on that basis the multiplier of 12 has been applied, which could be more than 12 had the age been taken to be 35 years and accordingly, by deducting Rs. 50/- p.m. for the maintenance of the deceased out of the computed income of Rs. 200/-, the Tribunal computed the total amount to be Rs. 21,600/- and by adding the conventional amount of Rs. 3,000/- granted compensation of Rs. 24,600/- as against the claim of Rs. 40,000/- made by the claimants in M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974. In case the monthly income is taken to be Rs. 400/- and Rs. 100/- is deducted for the maintenance of the deceased, the dependency value per month would come out to be Rs.300/- and the annual amount of the dependency value would be Rs. 3,600/-. Even if the age is taken to be 45 years, the total amount would come out to be Rs. 3,600/- x l2: Rs. 43,200/- and if the conventional amount of Rs. 5,000/ – is added, it would go to Rs. 48,200 / -, However, the claim was made for Rs. 40,000/- only. The grievance of the appellants is, therefore, reasonable that the award of Rs. 24,600/- only is not tenable and I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. However, it is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the amount more than the claim may not be granted. In this view of the matter, the claim for Rs. 40,000/- deserves to be allowed and the appellants are held entitled to recover Rs. 15,400/- more, in addition to the amount of Rs. 24,600/-, which has already been paid.
5. The learned Counsel for appellants has cited before me the Division Bench decision of our own High Court reported in Oriental Fire andGenl. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amarsing Pratapsing Sikliker 1994 ACJ 240: 1 (1993) ACC 627 (DB) Gujarat), in which it has been held that the Court may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date but not earlier than making such application in this behalf. Looking to the facts of this case that the claimants in this case were not properly advised to put up their proper case and the Tribunal has on the face of it awarded much less amount on the basis of wrong computation of the dependency value and also ignoring the age in terms of the post-mortem note and that besides the wife, the deceased was survived by four minors, I find it a fit case for grant of interest to the appellants as under:
(1) 6 percent per annum on the sum of Rs. 24,600/- from the date of application to the date of deposit of the amount of Rs. 24,600/- with the Tribunal.
(2) 12 percent per annum on the rest of the amount of Rs. 15,400/- from the date of the application to the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
6. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974 is accordingly modified with proportionate costs and the amounts, as stated above, against the compensation and interest, shall be paid to appellant No, 1, Kulsumbai, for herself and also for the four minor heirs. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 5, shall deposit the amount under orders of this Court on or before 31.3.1995 with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surendranagar with regard to M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974, decided on 14.3.1975.
7. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.