JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a claimants’ appeal and has been directed against the award dated 24.4.1990 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, who allowed the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation besides interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation on account of the death of Satish Kumar Jain, father of the claimants Bindu and Rinki minor daughters, Sidharath a son and husband of Smt. Balesh against the owner, driver and the National Insurance Company. The claim petition was filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. It may be mentioned here that vide the impugned award, the two claim peti-
tions were disposed of as the same had arisen from the same accident, but for my purpose, I am concerned with the claim petition No. 87 of 1989 titled Bindu and others v. M/s. Continental Valves Ltd. and others.
2. In this claim petition, death of Satish Kumar Jain look place on 13.5.1989 in a vehicular accident. It is alleged by the claimants that the deceased was a young man of 30 years. He was running a cloth shop in the name and style of M/s. Rattan Lal Gian Chand. He was the sole proprietor of the shop which was within the municipal limits of Farrukh Nagar. The deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. and having a bright career. The claimants were dependants on the income of the deceased. It is alleged by the claimants that on 13.5.1989, the date of accident at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased alongwith one Ved Parkash was going from Farrukh Nagar to Delhi on a scooter bearing No. BDZ-7244. Ved Parkash was sitting on pillion seat of the scooter, while the deceased was driving the scooter. When they reached Gurgaon at about 9.15 p.m. all of a sudden, a Maruti van beating No. DDB-5654 came from the side of Delhi at a very high speed. The driver of the Maruti van was driving tt rashly and negligently. It hit the scooter, as a result of which the accident took place. The deceased as well as Ved Parkash suffered multiple injuries. Satish Kumar later on succumbed to his injuries. He was removed to the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, but was declared dead. According to the claimants, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Sham Lal who was the driver of the offending vehicle and after causing the death, he slipped away from the place of incident but his vehicle number was noted by the persons present there. The injured Ved Parkash and his relatives informed the police and the D.C. Gurgaon several times but the respondents being influential persons were not arrested by the police. With these allegations, the claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. six lacs.
3. Notice of the claim petit ion was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. Respondent No. I admitted that it was the registered owner of the vehicle and the same was being driven by Sham Lal respondent No. 2, driver of the company. According to this witness, the van was generally used for carrying the Manager of the factory from his residence at Urban Estate Gurgaon and back after office hours of the factory. The alleged accident had not all occurred with this van and the driver was not deputed to Delhi on the date of the accident. Thus, it is not liable to pay any compensation. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in case, it is established that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, then the National Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the. driver of the van aiso filed a separate written statement and he adopted the line of action of respondent No. 1.
4. A separate written statement was filed by the National Insurance Company, which pleaded that the
claim petition is incomplete and vague. It does not disclose any cause of action. The claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the claim petition. On merits, the stand of the Insurance Company was that the driver of the vehicle was not at fault. The accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the driver was not having any driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the company is not liable to indemnify the insured even in the case of award.
5. Rejoinder was also filed by the claimants to the written statements in which they reiterated their allegations made in the claim petition by denying those of the written statements.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rush and negligent driving of Sham Lal, driver (respondent No. 2), while driving Maruti van DDB- 5654 while in the course of employment of respondent No. 1 ?OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, petitioners ae entitled ? OPP
3. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR
4. Whether petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPR
5. Relief.
7. The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, it was observed by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligence of respondent No. 2-Sham Lal, who was the driverofthe offending vehicle i.e. the van when he was discharging his duties in the course of employment of respondent No. 1. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the claimants and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/-. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents. Resultantly, the claim petition of the present appellants was partly allowed as stated above.
8. Aggrieved by the award, the present appellants filed the present appeal for the enhancement of compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal for the reasons given in para 16 of the award.
9. I have heard Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the appellants and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case.
10. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of the notice given by the Registry.
11. Before I deal with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce para No. 16 of the award so as to appreciate the reasons given by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- :
“Petitioner Balesh Kumari widow of Satish Kumar
Jain stepped into witness box as P.W. 1, who deposed on oath that Satish Kumar deceased was about 32 years of age at the time of death. He was running a cloth merchant shop in Farrukh Nagar. He was contributing Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 3500/- p.m. towards this family. Petitioners were entirely dependent upon the income of Satish Kumar. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are minors. Ashwani Kumar Accountant appeared as P.W.4 and proved the statements of accounts Ex.PW4/1 to Ex4/1 pertaining to the profit and loss from the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 where annual net profit of Rs. 32084.12 has been shown. No evidence has been produced to show, whether deceased was paying any income tax or not. No Income lax return has been produced in evidence by the petitioner nor any other person from the Income Tax Department has been examined to prove the income of the deceased. Ashwani Kumar was not a regular Accountant of the deceased. He was an agent of Syndicate Bank. So, in the absence of any cogent evidence about the exact income of the deceased Bahi entry Ex.PW4/1 cannot be believed in toto. One fact is proved on the record that the deceased was running a merchant shop. Taking over all view of the evidence, it can safely held that the deceased must be earning Rs. 1500/- p.m. He must be spending Rs. 500/- p.m. on his expenditure. Thus, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,000/- and annual dependency comes to Rs. 12,000/-. Deceased was about 32 years of age while petitioner Balesh is 30 years widow of the deceased and petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are his minor children. So taking into consideration the young age of the” deceased and petitioner No. 4 and minority of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, I am of the view that 16 will be the suitable multiplier. So, applying 16 as suitable and reasonable multiplier on annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/-, thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000/- (one lakh ninety two thousand). Thus, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to a compensation as damages on account of the death of deceased Satish Kumar which occurred in the said accident Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.”
12. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that it is proved on the record that the deceased was a cloth merchant. He was aged about 30 years. He had cloth business in Farrukh Nagar Municipal Committee, District Gurgaon. The de-.ceased was having monthly income of Rs. 3000/-. He was having his wife and three children and in these circumstances, the dependency of the claimants should be assessed minimum at Rs. 2000/- p.m. and in this case, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal fell in error while adjudicating that the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- p.m. only and the annual dependency of the claimants was Rs. 12,000/-.
13. I have considered the submission raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and in my opinion, the Tribunal fell in error in calculating the annual dependency of the claimants. It is alleged by the claimants in para 7 of the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. In support of their case, widow of the deceased Smt. Balesh Kumari appeared as her own witness as PW-1. She categorically stated that her husband was about 32 years of age at the time of accident. He was a close merchant and was running cloth merchant shop in Farrukh Nagar and was contributing Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 3500/- p.m. towards his family. Some exaggerations are invariably made by the claimants while filing the claim petition. However, there is a documentary evidence from which a reasonable assessment can be made with regard to the income of the deceased. As I stated above, the deceased was a cloth merchant. He was having three children and his wife. Annual net income of the de-ceased has been proved to be Rs. 32,084.12. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. If the net income of the deceased is round up, comes to Rs. 32,000/-, meaning thereby that the month income of the deceased was Rs. 2700/- p.m. The deceased was maintaining his wife and three children, therefore the annual dependency of the claimants after decutting personal expenses of the deceased can safely be taken as Rs. 1800/- p.m. meaning thereby Rs. 21,600/- annually. I do not agree with the submission of Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, when he submits that a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly applied a multiplier of 16. After applying a multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency of Rs. 21,600/-, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,45,600/- as compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. In this view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are hereby modified.
14. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed and the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. The amount already paid to the claimants under the award shall stand adjusted. Enhanced compensation shall be divided equally amongst the claimants and the amount of compensation falling to the shares of the minors shall remain deposited in a Scheduled Bank till they attain the age of majority. Directions are given to the respondents to pay enhanced compensation within two months from today. Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
15. Appeal partly allowed.
