JUDGMENT
K.P. Bhandari, J.
1. Kamlesh Kumari and other claimants, have claimed compensation on account of the death of Jagmohan Lal Driver. Kamelash Kumari is the widow and Rajesh Kumar, Vikas are minor sons of Jagmohan Lal and Reshmi is the minor daughter, Jagmohan Lal, driver, was driving Car No. PUV-6350 owned by the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was coming from Delhi to Ambala. On the way near Village Shamgarh, truck No. HRU 591 went on the wrong side and hit the car. The driver of the car died as a result of the accident. The Tribunal while discussing issue No. 1 on consideration of evidence of Ram Sarup, Fateh Singh came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently took the truck on the wrong side and hit the car. This resulted in the accident, Mr. Suri tried to challenge the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1, It is submitted that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the driver of the car. I am afraid that the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is not borne out from the evidence on the record.
2. After going through the evidence on the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has taken correct view of the matter and has rightly held that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the truck driver by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and struck against the car. Under Issue No. 2 the Tribunal discussed the question regarding loss to the estate. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was drawing salary at the rate of Rs. 734/- per month from the Punjab State Electricity Board. After applying cut of 1/3rd, the dependency was calculated at Rs. 500/- per month. In this way, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 6000/- The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 14 in the present case and awarded a compensation of Rs. 84,000/- to the claimants. The multiplier of 14 is grossly on the lower side. The drivers in the Electricity Board are entitled to continue in service upto 60 years of age and immediately after retirement get re-employment. On account of the unfortunate accident, Kamlesh Kumari widow, two minor sons and a daughter who were dependent upon Jagmohan Lal suffered a great deal. Cross-objections were filed in this case and the claimants have demanded Rs. one Lakh as compensation and 18 percent interest thereon from the date of application. In Joginder Kaur v. State of Haryana 1991 (1) PLR 49: I (1991) ACC 258, N.C. Jain, J. held that in thecase of professional young man, a multiplier of 20 can always be given. In Smt. Usha Soni and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1989 (2) PLR 541, S.S. Sodhi, J. held that in case of professional men like doctors, their span of gainful employment extends beyond the normal date of retirement of those in service, in that they can continue doing professional work till as long as they are physically capable of doing so. Keeping in view this aspect, alongwith the age and other circumstances, the appropriate multiplier, in the said case, was applied to be 20. In Smt. Urmila Devi v. Baljit Singh 1989 (1) PLR 562, A.L. Bahri J. applied a multiplier of 20. Recently, the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Anr. J.T. 1992(2) SC 409 : I (1992) ACC 603 (SC) Kuldip Singh, J. observed that in the matter of determination of quantum of compensation, the Courts must be liberal where life and limb in generous scales are involved and the Supreme Court applied a multiplier of 24.
3. Considering all aspects of evidence on the record and the submissions made at the Bar by the Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the present case multiplier of 20 should be applied and the compensation should be worked out by the Tribunal accordingly. In addition, the claimants should be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum on the amount of compensation, from the date of application till its realisation. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
No other point has been urged before me.
In view of the above discussion, FAO No. 140 of 1985 is dismissed with costs and the Cross Objections No. 23-CII of 1985 are allowed to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal within three months.