JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra and S.R. Waghmare, JJ.
1. The claimants-appellants, the wife and minor children of the deceased Shiv Kumar Gupta, have called in question the legal validity of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdol (in short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000 as against this the claim put forth by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 25,76,000.
2. The facts that have given rise to the institution of the claim case are that while the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle, a truck bearing registration No. MKJ 9737 being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 1 dashed against it as a consequence of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot.
3. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation on the foundation that the deceased was getting Rs. 80,000 from agricultural income and Rs. 36,000 from the hire charges of the tractor. The Tribunal considering the material on record granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 95,000 towards compensation on various heads.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the appellants, that the Tribunal has erred in law by not adverting to the claims put forth by the claimants and has arrived at the conclusion as regards the income and contribution of the deceased in an illegal manner.
5. Per contra, it is urged by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the insurer that the deceased had not owned any tractor and after his death there has been not much loss of income.
6. On a perusal of the award we find that there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Lala that the deceased had owned a tractor. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter to the Tribunal but we have thought it proper to decide the case so that the controversy is put to rest. On a studied scrutiny it is seen that no document has been brought on record showing that the deceased had owned any tractor. In view of the aforesaid the income obtained from the tractor cannot be given credence. As far as the agricultural income is concerned the loss would be computed on the backdrop of supervision and the labour put by the deceased. In view of the aforesaid we are inclined to say instead of notional income there should have been a determined income which we are inclined to think would be Rs. 20,000 per year. We are disposed to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion inasmuch as the deceased had five minor children and the wife to look after and individually he had been working hard and his supervision and participation has to be computed in monetary terms. As the family was large we are persuaded to think that the deceased could not have been in a position to spend 1/3rd on himself. In view of the aforesaid we think it condign to fix the yearly contribution at Rs. 15,000. As the deceased was 45 years the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Thus, the compensation on this score would be Rs. 15,000 x 15 = Rs. 2,25,000. To the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 9,500 is to be added towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in toto, claimants would be entitled to Rs. 2,34,500. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 95,000 and the sum has been deposited with interest. In view of the aforesaid we are inclined to direct the enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the award. The said amount shall be computed and be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the present order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
7. The directions given by the Tribunal keeping in view the law laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpration. v. Susamma Thomas , would also apply to the enhanced sum.
8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.