JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 22.7.2001 passed by the M.A.C.T., Ratlam in Claim Case No. 10 of 1999.
2. For death of Vijaykant Dube, Asstt. Professor in Government College, in a road accident, the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation from respondents.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.10.1998, deceased was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. MP 14-H 0830. While he was going from Jaora to Mandsaur near Mandsaur Circuit House, a truck bearing No. MP 13-E 0947 came from opposite direction and dashed against bus, thus accident was caused by respondent No. 1 on account of his rash and negligent driving of truck. At the time of accident truck was belonging to respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3.
4. On the basis of evidence Tribunal found that respondent No. 1 Hiralal was solely responsible for causing the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving of truck. Claims Tribunal also found that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of accident. These findings of the Claims Tribunal are not assailed before us. Tribunal also found that deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in road accident. At the time of accident deceased was employed as Asstt. Professor and was aged only 45 years. Claims Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,44,033 (Rupees nine lakh forty-four thousand and thirty-three) as compensation to the appellants against the Insurance Company.
5. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, appellants are before us in appeal for enhancement of compensation as mentioned above.
6. The learned Counsel for appellants submitted that looking to age of deceased multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Learned Counsel for appellants drew our attention to Exh. P-107. It is the extracts of service book of deceased wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 16.7.1953. Thus at the time of accident deceased had already completed 45 years of age. Therefore he was in age group of 45 to 50. For this age group in the Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 13 has been provided. The Tribunal in our opinion ought to have adopted multiplier of 13 instead of 8.
7. The learned Counsel for appellants further submitted that Tribunal ought to have taken into account revised pay scale which was given to the deceased after his death in accordance with recommendation of 5th Pay Commission.
8. After going through the record and evidence we find that Tribunal has rightly assessed annual dependency of the appellants at Rs. 1,08,540 (Rupees one lakh eight thousand five hundred and forty). While working out future loss of dependency, Tribunal adopted multiplier of 8. We have already pointed out that proper multiplier which has to be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the case is 13. Thus, we apply multiplier of 13 to work out future loss of dependency which comes out to Rs. 1,08,540 x 13 = Rs. 14,11,020 (Rupees fourteen lakh eleven thousand and twenty).
Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that after accident deceased was nospitalised in T. Choithram Hospital, Indore and during his treatment appellants incurred a total sum of Rs. 1,08,058 (Rupees one lakh eight thousand and fifty-eight). According to learned Counsel for appellants Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs. 61,953. Thus, appellants are entitled to recover in addition to Rs. 61,953 a sum of Rs. 46,105 (Rupees forty-six thousand one hundred and five) towards medical expenses.
9. Thus, the appellants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,27,078 (Rupees fifteen lakh twenty-seven thousand and seventy-eight) only which is rounded off to Rs. 15,30,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh and thirty thousand). To this we add another sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation on other heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of company, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, appellants are entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 15,50,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh and fifty thousand) from respondent Nos. 3 and 6, Insurance Company. Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid to appellants.
10. In view of foregoing discussion, appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified to extent indicated above. The respondent Insurance Company shall bear costs throughout. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand), if certified.