JUDGMENT
N.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal has arisen out of an award given by the Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Bhiwani, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,200/- to the appellants with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The brief facts as emerge out of the pleadings and evidence brought on the record of the case are that an accident took place near village Mithi on Behal-Jhupa road in district Bhiwani on 2.11.1982 at about 4.15 P.M. in which Ram Kishan driver of the Motor Cycle No. PUP 3193 died, whereas pillion rider Tara Chand suffered injuries. The case of the claimants, in short, is that Ram Kishan resident of village Mithi was going to village Jhupa alongwith Tara Chand pillion rider and when he reached Behal-Jhupa road, he slowed down the speed of the Motor Cycle as he was to negotiate the turn towards Jhupa road. A car bearing No. DEC 1205 driven by Satbir driver at a high speed suddenly appeared from the side of village Jhupa and struck against the Motor Cycle. The car driver did not blow horn.
3. The petition was contested by all the respondents. The driver and owner, respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively, filed joint written statement wherein it was pleaded that respondent No. 1 was very cautious in driving the car and that the deceased was driving the Motor Cycle rashly and negligently. According to them the accident took place on account of negligence of the motorcyclist. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company while admitting the insurance of the vehicle in question took up the plea that the policy lapsed before the date of the accident.
4. On the basis of the rival pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Ram Kishan died in motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of car No. DEC 1205 by respondent No. 1 Satbir as alleged ? OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled? If so from whom? OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is vague and incomplete and deserves dismissal on this score as alleged? OPR
4. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of mis-joinder of parties as alleged? OPR
5. Whether the claim petition has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee? OPP
6. Whether the claim petition has been filed in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? OPR
7. Whether the verification of the petition is defective? If so its effect? OPR
8. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to bring this petition? OPR
9. Whether the policy lapsed on account of transfer of the vehicle before the date of accident? If so its effect? OPR
10. Whether the claim petition is barred by time OPR.
11. Whether the insured has contravened the condition precedent to the policy and as such respondent No. 3 is not liable to indemnify? OPR
12. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was not being driven in terms of conditions of the policy? OPR
13. Relief.
5. The Tribunal, under issue No. 1, held that Ram Kishan died in the accident. It was held that the deceased did not have any driving licence and that he was liable for contributory negligence as he was coming from the side road and while entering the main road he was to take due care which he failed to take. In view thereof, it was held that the liability would be apportioned between the car driver and the motorcyclist in the ratio of 50:50. Under issue No. 2, the income of the deceased was adjudged at Rs. 300/- per month. After holding the annual dependency of the claimants at 2/3rd and after applying multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation has been fixed at Rs. 19,200/-. Issues No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 were not pressed. The Court fee was correctly paid and in view thereof, issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the claimants. The petition was found to be within time under issue No. 10. Under issue No. 12 it was found that the driver of the car was holding a valid driving licence. The claimants, feeling dissatisfied against the award of the Tribunal, have come up in appeal.
6. In this case, primarily two questions arise for consideration of this Court. The first question is as to whether the Claims Tribunal is right in holding that the present case is of contributory negligence. Second question is as to whether the Claims Tribunal is right in determining the amount of compensation at Rs. 19,200/-. Coming to the first question, I do not have any doubt in my mind that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is correct. Admittedly, the deceased was coming from the side road, whereas the car was coming on the main road. It was the duty of the motorcyclist to take all possible care before entering the main road. The Tribunal is right in holding that the statements of Tara Chand, PW-3 and Munshi Ram, PW-4 are divergent with the stand taken in the petition. In the petition it has been stated that the motorcyclist with a view to negotiate turn towards Jhupa slowed down the speed of the motor cycle before approaching the main road, whereas the stand of both these witnesses in their statements before the Tribunal is that the deceased has negotiated the turn when the accident took place. The deceased was not having a valid driving licence. The car stopped at two paces after the accident which shows that it was not being driven at a very high speed. I have examined the site plan Ex. P4. The point ‘A’ where the accident had taken place is virtually in the middle of the road. Had the motorcyclist negotiated the turn successfully, the place of accident would not have been at point at ‘A’. For all these reasons it can safely be held that the negligence of the motor cyclist did contribute towards the occurrence. Consequently, the finding under issue No. 1 as recorded by the Tribunal, is affirmed.
7. Adverting to the point of compensation, no fault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal that it was not true that the deceased was carrying on the business of cloth-merchant and selling vegetables. It has also not been proved that he was earning any money from the agricultural pursuits because he did not have any land in his name. However, the finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- per month only cannot be sustained. I asked the learned counsel for the respondent to enquire as to what were the minimum wages in the year 1982 and I have been informed that it was approximately Rs. 17/18 per day. In view thereof, I adjudged the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. He has left one widow, two children besides parents. In these circumstances, the deceased must not be spending upon himself more than l/4th of his entire income. In view thereof, the dependency can be held at 3/4th. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given multiplier of 24 in Smt. Prerna and Anr. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, J.T. 1993(1) S.C. 295. In view thereof, I also give a multiplier of 24 in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given interest at the rate of 15% in Rukmani Devi and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Ors. , 1991 A.C.J. 3. I award interest at the rate of 15% as well. The amount compensation thus would be Rs. 64,800/- plus interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of application till realisation.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed with costs which stand quantified at Rs. 2000/-