IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2028 of 2000. Bhanwar Lal Yadav son of Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav & Others VERSUS Naimuddin son of Shri Moinuddin & Another Date of Order :::: 12/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Vinay Mathur, Counsel for the claimant-appellants Mr. R.K. Mathur, Counsel for the Respondents *** By the Court :
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the award of the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal while determining the award of compensation has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 16, where the age of the deceased was determined as 30-years.
Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the provisions of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a multiplier of 18 ought to have been adopted.
The case of the appellants throughout was that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 26-years, as mentioned in Para 3 of the claim petition.
Learned counsel submits that the reliance placed upon the post morterm report (Exhibit-2), wherein the age of the deceased Ram Chandra was entered as 30-years is only by way of an approximation and, therefore, the reliance upon the same for determining the compensation could not be taken as final, which too was not at the instance of the claimants.
The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the age of the deceased has been entered in the post morterm report as 30-years and in absence of any other evidence the same has rightly been taken as correct.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above.
I am of the view that the age of the deceased having been taken as 30-years, no interference is called for in this miscellaneous appeal. However, the benefit can be given so far as the multiplier is concerned. For the age group in between 25-30-years a multiplier of 18 has been prescribed and that for 30-35 years, a multiplier of 17 has been prescribed. Since the claimants have given the age of the deceased as 26-years, I am inclined to take the multiplier of 18 in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the age has been held to be 30-years by the learned Tribunal.
On the basis of the above, the computation of compensation for the loss of earning without disturbing the dependency is assessed as follows :
(2000x12x18) = Rs.4,32,000/-
An amount of Rs.3,84,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the aforesaid head. The said amount is liable to be deducted. The appellants would be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.48,000/- under this head. The appellant would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount with effect from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 14.11.2000 till the date of its realization.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not allowing the interest on the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and has only stated that the interest be awarded in the event of delayed payment beyond a period of 45-days. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chameli Wati and Another Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, reported in 1985 A.C.J. Page 645, and is the settled law that the interest be awarded on compensation.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the claimant-appellants are entitled to award the interest on the amount of Rs.4,16,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 30.03.1999 up to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount, which has already been paid to the claimant.
It is made clear that no interest on the amount of interest shall be payable.
This miscellaneous appeal stands allowed, as aforesaid.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Dalip Singh), J.