JUDGMENT
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is by the claimants (appellants herein) directed against award dated 19.11.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 15.9.1985 at about 1.20 PM, bus bearing registration No. PUC-3534 left Railway Station, Amritsar, for Chogawan. When the said bus reached near Field Workshop of Drainage Department, a passenger on the road side got the same stopped for boarding on it. At that time, another bus bearing registration No. PBA- 5692 driven by respondent, Satnam Singh, in which deceased Surjit Singh was sitting on front side, came and struck the aforesaid stationary bus from the rear side and then after over-taking it stopped at about 100 yards. As a result of that impact, deceased Surjit Singh received injuries and was removed by respondent Satnam Singh to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The driver of bus No. PBA-5692 was allegedly held responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Claimants, namely, widow, three minor sons, and parents of the deceased then filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, claiming compensation on account of death of Surjit Singh. Later on, due to death of mother of deceased, her name was deleted from the array of parties. On notice of the claim petition, respondents 1 and 2, namely, State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Transport, Punjab, and Punjab Roadways, Depot No. 2, Amritsar, through its Manager, respectively filed their written statement thereby denying the allegations by stating that on 15.9.1985 bus bearing registration No. PBA-5692 was being driven by respondent No. 3, Satnam Singh, at a normal speed and that another bus No. PUC-3534 abruptly stopped in order to take passengers when driver Satnam Singh applied brakes to stop the bus but the brakes did not work and thus, his bus struck against bus No. PUC-3534. It was stated that the passenger sitting on the front seat of bus No. PBA-5692 received injuries for which he was taken to hospital where he expired and there is no rashness or negligence on the part of respondent Satnam Singh. Respondent No. 3 Satnam Singh also filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and on merits, denied the allegations. Thereafter, replication was filed by the claimants controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those in the claim petition.
3. On pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the learned Tribunal whereupon the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence so adduced by the parties before it, held that the accident took place due to rash driving of driver Satnam Singh, respondent, and thus, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,28,736/- in favour of the claimants with 12 per cent per annum. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 96,552/- was ordered to be paid to the widow and three minor sons of the deceased while the remaining amount of Rs. 32,184/- was ordered to be paid to deceased’s father Karam Singh. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the instant appeal for enhancement thereof.
4. The deceased was a JBT teacher getting salary of Rs. 1340.30 per month. Appellants-claimants to prove future earning had re-examined AW-3 Randhir Chander from the office of the deceased to show that there had been revision of pay scales and had the deceased not died, his salary would have increased to Rs. 1825/- and then subsequently at Rs. 2379.50P. His re-examination shows that the figures given in the statement are not with reference to any record. Future always remains uncertain. Even otherwise, rights and liabilities arising on the date of accident would be relevant for the purpose of determining the question of compensation. Thus, arguments have been confined that multiplier of 12 as applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side. No doubt, in the postmortem report the age of the deceased is recorded as 40 years and the claimants claim that the deceased was 35 years of age; however, AW-3 Randhir Chander, when initially examined, had stated on the basis of record wherein the date of birth of the deceased was recorded to be 5.6.1954. Thus, the deceased was about 31 years of age at the time of death. The Tribunal though has rightly assessed the dependency at Rs. 894/- on the basis of salary of Rs. 1340/- but application of multiplier of 12 by it is certainly on the lower side. In my view, a multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. It is ordered accordingly. Therefore, the compensation is worked out which comes to Rs. 1,71,648/-, i.e. Rs. 42,912/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced amount, a sum of Rs. 22,912/- is ordered to be paid to appellant No. 1-widow while the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- is ordered to be disbursed to appellants 2 to 5, namely, three minor sons and father of the deceased, in equal share. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. 2005-2 P.L.R.650. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in this case shall carry interest at the flat rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.