JUDGMENT
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. This is a claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 21 of 1981 decided on 1.10.1988 whereby the Tribunal for the death of the deceased Bhonduram, aged about 38 years, caused by motor accident awarded the compensation of Rs. 28,500/- only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was getting a gross pay of Rs. 740/- who left seven dependants, therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses was erroneous. It is also contended that the multiplier applied of 10 is on lower side. In the head of consortium no amount of compensation has been awarded. After applying the method of multiplier a deduction of 10 percent is illegal and improper.
3. After hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on wrong application of law which is inadequately low. The deceased was getting gross pay of Rs. 740/- p.m. who was having seven dependants and it cannot be expected that he would incur 1/3rd as personal living expenses on himself. Therefore, the dependency deserves to be increased from Rs. 422/- to Rs. 500/- per month, yearly Rs. 6,000/-. The deceased was aged 38 years, therefore, the multiplier ought to have been of 13. Thus, the total compensation will come to Rs. 78,000/- besides the conventional figure of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of consortium. Thus, the total compensation the claimants would be entitled to would be Rs. 83,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit. Of course, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjustment of the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest.
4. At this stage, Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted that the application for compensation was filed on 31.3.1981 and this appeal was filed on 19.11.1988 which has come up for hearing before this court in February, 1996, for that no fault can be attributed on the part of the respondent. In such circumstances, the amount of interest at the rate of 12 per cent from 31.3.1981 till the date of order would cause great injustice to the respondent. In the opinion of this court, submission of Mr. Rao deserves consideration. Hence, considering all the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent cannot be blamed for the delay in disposal, as for the act of the court a party should not be made to suffer; ‘the act of the court shall prejudice no man’, hence, the respondent company cannot be burdened for payment of interest for a long period of 15 years. The ends of justice would meet if the appellants-claimants are directed to be paid the amount under award so modified with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for a period of ten years only, for that we place reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Singh 1995 ACJ 26 (MP).
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The award is modified in the manner aforesaid. The insurance company shall deposit the compensation with interest as directed, of course, after due adjustment of the amount already deposited by it within a period of two months. On deposit the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants taking into consideration the guidelines laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). Counsel’s fee Rs. 500, if pre-certified.