JUDGMENT
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. This is the claimants’ appeal arising from the judgment and award dated 15.12.1993 given in M.V.C. No. 323 of 1990. The claimants felt dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. The Tribunal in this case had awarded the compensation vide para 15 of the order which is being quoted herewith:
In view of my above discussions the petitioners are entitled to compensation on various heads as follows:
(1) Loss of dependency ... Rs. 90,000
(2) Loss of consortium ... Rs. 5,000
(3) Loss to the estate ... Rs. 6,000
(4) Funeral expenses,
obsequies, etc. ... Rs. 3,500
---------------
Total Rs. 1,04,500
---------------
Thus, in toto the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,04,500 as total compensation and awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of negligence and cause of action has been the sole negligent and rash driving of the motor vehicle by the driver of the bus bearing registration No. MYA 5253 is not in dispute. The finding recorded on issue No. 3 “whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased, or not” by the Tribunal is in negative has also not been challenged and disputed. The only question raised is about the quantum of compensation awarded. On account of the accident, Pillappa alias Pillaiah, the husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 4 had died. According to the claimants, the deceased was a barber and his monthly income was Rs. 1,500 at the time of the accident and he was aged, according to claimants about 46 years. That the Tribunal has come to the finding that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 50 years. The Tribunal opined that the deceased’s income at the time of the accident was only Rs. 1,000 and opined that he could have spent Rs. 250 for self and Rs. 750 would have been spent by him on the family. That thus, Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the yearly loss of dependency suffered was to be quantified at Rs. 9,000 and when it is multiplied by 10 it held that the loss of dependency was to the tune of Rs. 90,000 and held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 90,000 as loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 towards consortium, Rs. 6,000 towards loss to the estate and Rs. 3,500 for funeral expenses with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The claimants have come up in appeal and it has been contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of dependency by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000 when there is uncontroverted evidence of PW 1 to the effect that the monthly income of the deceased was much more than Rs. 1,000 as the deceased was earning Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 per day.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is no reason not to accept the evidence of the claimants. The learned counsel further contended that the multiplier of 10 has been used which is on the lower side. He contended that the proper multiplier would be 12 or 13. He further submitted that towards loss to estate the award of Rs. 6,000 is also unsatisfactory and meagre as well as the award of Rs. 5,000 for consortium is also not satisfactory. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum is on the lower side and it should have been granted at the rate of 10 per cent per annum if not at 12 per cent per annum.
3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants have been contested by the learned counsel for the respondents and it had been contended that generally speaking the award is justified. Learned counsel for the respondents contended, assessment of monthly income at Rs. 1,000 cannot be said to be on the lower side nor is unsatisfactory nor unjustified. The rate of interest awarded is not unsatisfactory nor on too lower side.
4. We have applied our mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. As regards the loss of dependency, the trial court has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,000. In our opinion, the court was unjustified in not accepting the evidence of PW 1. Even if there was any chance of exaggeration, that exaggeration could not be more than 5 to 10 per cent. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated the monthly income to be Rs. 1,500. Giving the margin of exaggeration, we think the proper income to be taken would be Rs. 1,200 per month of the deceased at the time of the accident. If we reduce 25 per cent thereof, taking that 1/4th the deceased would have spent on himself, definitely the loss of dependency per month would be to the tune of Rs. 900 and yearly loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,800. The multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal, looking to the age of the deceased, namely, 50 years at the time of the accident, appears to be on the lower side. In our opinion, the proper multiplier would be 12. Rs. 10,800 when multiplied by 12, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,29,600, in round figure we take it as Rs. 1,30,000. As such in our opinion, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 towards loss of dependency. A sum of Rs. 5,000 awarded as consortium to the widow and the children also appears to be on the lower side. In our opinion awarding of Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium would be justified and sufficient. In the same way, awarding of Rs. 6,000 towards loss to the estate also appears to be unsatisfactory. We enhance it from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 10,000. The award of Rs. 3,500 for funeral expenses appears to be quite justified. Thus, considered in our opinion the claimants-appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,53,500, in round figure to a sum of Rs. 1,54,000 as total compensation. The award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent keeping in view the galloping inflation and erosion of value of rupee, a factor to be kept in view as per the law laid in Dr. K.R. Tandon v. Om Prakash , as well as the decision of Division Bench of this court in M.F.A. No. 1890 of 1994, decided on 6.1.99 appears to be on the lower side. In our opinion, it would be proper and justified if the interest is awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount enhanced from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment of deposit and as such it is so awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on enhanced amount from the date of petition of claim to the date of deposit. Thus a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 out of the entire sum awarded including the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum up to date shall be deposited in the name of the appellants-claimants in any branch of some bank which is nationalised in the fixed deposits for a term of 5 years. The interest earned on the deposit so made as directed shall be payable to the claimants through the appellant No. 1, the mother of other appellants every month or every quarterly as she may desire.
This appeal is accordingly allowed.