JUDGMENT
G.S. Sarraf, J.
1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 24.5,1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
2. The facts in brief are that when one Harnath was going from his house towards Renwal on 16.10.1993 a truck RJ14 G1103 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 hit him from behind in front of Sanganer Sadar Police Station in consequence of which Harnath died. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the truck RJ14 G1103. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by judgment dated 24.5.1996 passed an award of Rs. 1,34,800 in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed this appeal.
3. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has held the deceased Harnath responsible for contributory negligence and has deducted 20% of the dependency amount on account of it which is against the evidence present on the record. He has said that it is fully established by the evidence on record that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the truck driver respondent No. 1 alone and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Harnath and, therefore, the 20% deduction made by the learned Tribunal is illegal. He has further submitted that the age of the deceased was around 32 years at the time of his death and in such situation the multiplier of 17 should have been adopted whereas the learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10. He has also submitted that no amount has been awarded for loss of consortium.
4. Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal.
5. According to the claim petition the age of the deceased Harnath was 32 years at the time of his death whereas in the post-mortem report he has been shown to be 42 years old. The deceased was getting Rs. 900 from the factory where he was employee to which Rs. 400 has been added by the learned Tribunal on account of agricultural income. After taking into consideration future prospects the learned Tribunal has assessed the average income as Rs. 1,950 and after deducting 1/3rd of it on account of self expenditure it has assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,300 per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter has adopted a multiplier of 10. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and two Ors. II (2005) ACC 476 (SC) : 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 732, the Hon’ble Supreme Court without taking future prospects into consideration adopted a multiplier of 12 reducting it from 16 where the deceased was about 38 years of age. In this case the learned Tribunal has taken future prospects into consideration and thereafter it has adopted a multiplier of 10.1 am clearly of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the multiplier of 10 adopted by the learned Tribunal is appropriate.
6. As regards the loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000 to the appellants in lump sum on account of loss of love and affection and, therefore, there is no justification to add any amount due to loss of consortium.
7. Babban A.W. 2 and Gopiram A.W. 3 have stated that the truck RJ 14 G 1103 hit the deceased Harnath from behind when he was going by bicycle. It is established by the two statements that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently and the accident occurred entirely due to the negligence of the truck driver. No negligence on the part of the deceased is evident even by the site plan Ex. 3. Thus no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Harnath is proved. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased Harnath is entirely arbitrary and is not supported by the evidence present on the record. Therefore, 20% deduction from the dependency amount on account of the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased Harnath is illegal. If that be so then the appellants get (1300 x 12 x 10) Rs. 1,56,000 on account of dependency to which Rs. 10,000 may be added on account of loss of love and affection as held by the learned Tribunal. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,66,000 as compensation.
8. Consequently, the appeal of the claimant-appellants is allowed to the extent stated above and the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellants is increased from Rs. 1,34,800 to Rs. 1,66,000. The claimant-appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the learned Tribunal to the date of deposit/realisation on the enhanced amount. If the aforesaid amount is not paid or deposited within a period of three months then the respondents will have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Tribunal will apportion the amount among the claimants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit thereof. No order as to costs.