JUDGMENT
N.C Jain, J.
1. This judgment of mine would dispose of F.A.O. No. 503 of 1986 filed by the Oriental Insurance Company and the Cross-Objections No. 38-CII of 1987 preferred by the claimants. The brief facts as they emerge out of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record of the case are that R.N. Malik, deceased engaged the services of Narinder Kumar, owner of the truck and Yash Pal driver of the truck for carrying out household luggage and goods on account of his transfer from Pathankot to Delhi Cantt. while the truck No PUG-7967 was on its way to Delhi, it met with an accident with Bus No PUI-5325. The accident took place on 10.1.1984 at about 7.45 A.M. Both the vehicles were alleged to be driven rashly and negligently and on account of the accident R.N. Malik died on the spot. The claimants who are the farther, mother .widow and two minor children claimed a compensation to the tune of Rupees Five lacs for the loss of the company of the deceased and loss of earning capacity . The deceased was working as Superintendent (B&R) Grade I in the office of the Chief Engineer, Udhampur and was getting-Rs.1830/- per month as his salary.
2. The averments made in the application for the grant of compensation were denied. The appellant Insurance Company also contested the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be called the Tribunal) struck the following issues;
1. Whether the claim petition is vague and incomplete as alleged in Preliminary objection No. l in the written statement by respondent No. 3? OPR-3.
2. Whether R.N. Malik died on account of collision of Bus No. PUI-5325 and truck No. PUG-7967? If so, at whose fault the accident took place and to what affect?
3. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and against whom?
4. Relief.
3. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants as the same was not pressed by the respondents. Under Issue No. 2 it was held that R.N. Malik, died on account of collision of Bus and the truck and that the truck driver was at fault. Under Issue No. 3, the claimants were held entitled to the grant of Rs. 1,68,768/- alongwith 12 percent interest. Narinder Kumar and Yash Pal respondents were also held liable jointly and severally to make the payment of compensation amount alongwith the appellant Oriental Insurance Company.
4. The Oriental Insurance Company has filed the appeal claiming reduction in the amount of compensation whereas the Claimants has filed cross- objections seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation.
5. Shree. V.P. Ghandi, Advocate, appearing for the appellant had died and, therefore, actual date notice was issued to the appellant. Despite service nobody has chosen to appear and, therefore, this Court with the help of the counsel for the respondents has gone through the Award of the Tribunal, pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on the record of the case. The finding of the Additional District Judge regarding negligence of the truck driver is borne out from the evidence brought on the record of the case. There can hardly be any dispute as regards the monthly income of the deceased, be being a salaried person. The grant of compensation amount in the sum of Rs 1,68,768/- cannot be said to be excessive. Rather, the same is apparently on the lower side as only a multiplier of 12 has been given by the Tribunal which, in my opinion, is less. As to what multiplier be given, the same would be seen while dealing with the cross-objections of the claimants.
6. Adverting to the cross- objections of the claimants, modification is needed to the extent that a multiplier of 16 should have been given instead of multiplier of 12. The only reason which has been given by the Additional District Judge for giving the multiplier of 12 is that life expectancy of an individual is 58 years whereas the deceased was 46 years. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that normal span of life of a person if 70 years. It has been held by this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 P.L.R. 1 that a multiplier 4 of 16 can be given. A multiplier of 16 has been given by this Court as well as by other Hon’ble Courts in the case of death persons ranging in the age of 46 years. In view thereof, cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed. The amount of compensation after giving a multiplier of 16 stands adjudged at Rs. 2,25,024/-. Out of the amount of Rs.2,25,024/- a sum of Rs. 40,000/- only would be given to the mother of the deceased. The father of the deceased C.D. Malik had already died, Rest of the amount alongwith interest would be shared equally by three, claimants, that is the widow and two minor children of the deceased-respondents 3 to 5.
7. For the reason recorded above the appeal filed by the appellant is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is consequently ordered to be dismissed whereas the Cross-objection filed by the claimants are allowed to the extent indicated above. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held responsible for paying the amount of compensation so awarded. No costs. The objectors would have 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the application till realisation.