JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by Amro Devi and Kashmir Singh, parents of deceased, Sanjay Kumar, for enhancement against the award, dated 1.6.2001, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, in MAC Petition No. 41 of 1998, awarding Rs. 2,16,000/- compensation to the claimants-petitioners to be paid by respondents No. 2 and 4, equally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, w.e.f. 5.11.1999. The parties are referred in the same manner, as in the impugned award.
2. The facts in brief, as pleaded, are that Sanjay Kumar, aged 21 years, was additional driver employed by respondent No. 1 to drive
truck on Rs. 2,500/- salary, per month and Rs. 100/- per day daily allowance. On 4.3.1998, truck No. DL-IG-A-3567, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 was being driven by driver Yashpal and Sanjay Kumar was in the said truck as co-driver. The truck was proceeding from Delhi to Bombay and it had head on collision with another truck bearing registration No. UP-07-C-5770. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Yashpal, driver of truck No. DL-IG-A-3567. Yashpal and driver of truck No. UP-07-C-5770, died on the spot alongwith Sanjay Kumar.
3. The respondent No. 3, is the owner of truck No. UP-07-C-5770, which was insured with respondent No. 4 New India Assurance Company. The accident took place due to negligent driving by the drivers of the respective trucks, therefore, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners No. 1 and 2, are the parents. There were two more petitioners before the Tribunal, namely Amin Chand and Smt. Indri Devi, but they did not press their claim.
4. The respondents No. 1 and 3, did not contest the petition. The respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company filed reply and took the objections that deceased was sitting in the truck in the capacity of workman and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The truck No. DL-IG-A-3567 was being driven by the driver at the time of accident without valid registration certificate, route permit and worthiness certificate. The driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the said truck. It was not being driven negligently by the driver.
5. Respondent No. 4, also contested the petition by filing the reply and has submitted that in view of policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the amount of compensation. The claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with owners. The respondent No. 4 has no liability to pay the compensation. The truck No. UP-07- X-5770, was not insured with respondent No. 4.
6. The learned Tribunal returned the finding that Sanjay Kumar Nired as a result of rash and negligent driving of the trucks by their respective drivers. The income of the deceased was assessed Rs. 1,500/- per month and ultimately an award of Rs. 2,16,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants, which was made payable by respondents No. 2 and 4 insurers of both the trucks alongwith interest, as noticed above.
7. The petitioners are thus in appeal.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners-claimants, who are appellants, I rub submitted that Tribunal has assessed income of deceased Sanjay Kumar, on the lower side. According to him, Sanjay Kumar was being
paid Rs. 2,500/-, per month salary and Rs. 100/- per day, on account of daily expenses, by his employer. PW 1 Kashmir Singh, father of the deceased, deposed that deceased was paying Rs. 4,000/-, per month, to him. The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that deceased was 21 years of age, and, therefore, keeping in view the dependency of the claimants-petitioners, they are entitled to compensation, as prayed in the petition.
10. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 have submitted that the claimants petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation, the Tribunal has already awarded compensation to the claimants petitioners on the higher side. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has further submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that deceased was young man of 21 years of age. He was to be married shortly. Petitioner No 1, the mother of the deceased was 45 years of age and petitioner No. 2, the father was 52 years of age, as per statement of PW 1 Kashmir Singh. Therefore, after assessing the dependency of the claimants petitioners, multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the parents of the deceased and thereafter, one-third deduction is to be made from the compensation so assessed. He has relied a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 541 of 2005, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prem Chand and Ors. decided on 17.5.2007.
11. In that case, the deceased was 30 years of age and petition was fieled by his parents where the father was about 52 years of age and mother a few years younger. The Division Bench in that case has held as follows:
It is by now well settled and it has been repeatedly held by this Court that in normal circumstances when the parents are the claimants, their dependency is to be assessed at 1/3rd of the total income. This is because the child would in normal course get married in near future. After the marriage, the deceased would have had his own spouse and family to look after and would not contribute that much amount to the parents. The normal rule is that the dependency of the parents should not be taken at more than 1/3rd of the income. However, this is not a cast iron proposition of law. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. There may be cases where the parents are not earning at all when the dependency may be assessed by the Tribunal at more than 1/3rd by giving reasons. There may be cases where there are a number of children and the parents cannot be held to be dependent only on one child or where the income of the parents is also substantial, the dependency of the parents can be reduced to below 1/3rd but in the absence of any special circumstances, this Court in a number of decisions including 2006 ACJ 1248, Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others v. Krishna Devi and Ors. has held that the
parents dependency should be taken to be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased.
The Division Bench in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prem Chand’s case (supra), has allowed multiplier of 12.
12. The learned Counsel for the claimants-petitioners has submitted that claimants-petitioners would be put to loss in case their dependency is assessed at 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased and not the actual dependency and then multiplier is applied keeping in view their age and not the age of the deceased. The dependency of the claimants-petitioners with the passage of time in normal course was to increase on the deceased and not to decrease. The claimants-petitioners are expected to live atleast for about twenty years more. There was no certainty about the marriage of the deceased. In these circumstances, the suitable multiplier for assessing the loss in the present case should be atleast 18.
13. The claimants-petitioners are entitled to just compensation. In xsketan v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. , a learned Single Judge of this Court in para-5 of the judgement, has held as follows:
…The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation….
14. PW 1 Kashmir Singh, father of the deceased, has nowhere stated in his statement that claimants-petitioners were totally dependant upon the deceased, rather he has stated that he is engaged in agriculture work. The claimants-petitioners have not placed special circumstances so as to assess their dependency more than 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased. The submission of learned Counsel for claimants-petitioners has no force and in view of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prem Chand’s case (supra), the claimants-petitioners are entitled to 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased and multiplier of 12 is applicable in their case.
15. The claimants-petitioners have been awarded Rs. 2,16,000/-x&mpensation alorigwith 9% interest per annum with effect from 5.11.1999, to be paid equally by both the insurance companies. In view of law laid down in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prem Chand’s case (supra) and the pleaded case of the claimants-petitioners, it appears the Tribunal
has awarded compensation to the claimants-petitioners on the higher side, but the respondents have accepted the award and, therefore, whatever amount has been awarded to the claimants-petitioners that cannot be reduced. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the award amount at the rate of 9% from 5.11.1999, whereas the petition was filed on 21.5.1998.
16. It is now well settled that interest is to be awarded from the date of filing of the petition, therefore, on the award amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- to the extent of their shares the respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company and respondent No. 4 New India Assurance Company are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 21.5.1998.
17. In view of above, the impugned award is modified. The claimants- petitioners are awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 21.5.1998, the compensation amount alongwith. interest is to be paid by respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company Limited and respondent No. 4 New India Assurance Company Limited equally to the claimants-petitioners.
18. With the above modification in the impugned award, the appeal stands disposed of, no costs.