JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 20.10.2000, passed by the Member, Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 64 of 2000.
2. On 11.5.2000, Shobharam and Pratapsingh were travelling in the trolley No. MP 14-G 2480 attached to tractor No. MP 14-K 5563 along with their agriculture produce to Daloda. The tractor was being driven by respondent No. 1 in the capacity of driver, who drove it so rashly and negligently near a culvert on the road between village Guliyana and Dhundhadka that the trolley attached to it overturned and Shobharam, who was sitting in the trolley was pressed under it and he succumbed to the injury sustained by him. Pratapsingh who was also sitting in the trolley sustained injuries in the accident.
3. The appellants being representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition for awarding them compensation for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased Shobharam, because they were dependent on the deceased and they have been deprived of his income, company and love and affection. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 13,61,000 as compensation. Pratapsingh also filed a claim petition for compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Learned Member, Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur (M.P.), by the common award dated 20.10.2000 passed in both the aforesaid claim cases numbered as M.A.C.C. Nos. 64 and 70 of 2000 respectively, allowed in part the claim of the appellants and awarded them Rs. 4,06,000 as compensation. Appellants feeling the amount of award to be insufficient have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for enhancing the sum awarded to them.
4. It is not necessary to examine the findings against the respondents, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle; who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the Claims Tribunal and none of the findings, though recorded in claimants’ favour, are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our order by discussing all these issues. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to get any more sum as compensation for the death of deceased Shobharam than what has already been awarded by the Tribunal?
5. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500 p.m. and after deducting Rs. 2,500 treating that much amount being spent on the deceased himself assessed the dependency of the appellants at Rs. 4,000 p.m. The assessment of the income and the dependency appears to be just and proper. The contention ox the learned Counsel for the appellants is that looking to the number of family members only 1/4th of the income of the deceased should have been deducted for his personal expenses. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be sustained, as according to the settled principles 1/3rd of the income of the deceased should have been deducted for assessing the dependency of the family members or dependants of the deceased. The amount deducted by learned Tribunal is near about 1/3rd of the income assessed by Claims Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has selected the multiplier of 8 for calculating the loss of dependency. Looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier selected by the learned Tribunal appears to be on lower side. The reason assigned by the learned Tribunal for selecting the multiplier on lower side is that the appellant wife of the deceased is receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 2,600. This is not legal or sound ground to assess the dependency on lower side, because the family pension to the wife is not liable to be taken into consideration for working out the loss caused to her and other family members of the deceased.
6. The learned Tribunal has, in para 16 of the impugned award, held that at the time of his death deceased Shobharam was 31 years of age, but while assessing the loss of dependency the multiplier of 8 has been selected in view the fact that appellant Dhuribai, widow of the deceased is getting Rs. 2,600 p.m. as pension, which according to us is not correct approach. In the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the appellants the proper multiplier should be 15 and, thus, the compensation payable to the appellants under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,20,000. The appellants are also entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 22,000 to meet the compensation under different conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of company, loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in our modest computation the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 7,42,000 from the respondents severally and jointly.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 4,06,000 to Rs. 7,42,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Respondents shall also bear costs of the appellants throughout. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,500, if certified.