A.S. Tripathi, J.
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of Gwalior (hereinafter for short the ‘Tribunal’), awarding Rs. 4,92,000 as compensation to the present appellants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till the date of payment. It was further directed that keeping the interest of the minors in view, the amount of Rs. 25,000 in each name be deposited in some nationalised bank, which could be withdrawn with the permission of the court.
2. One Vishal Singh Gurjar met with an accident on 20.9.1993 while he was going on a scooter and was dashed by a dumper No. MP-20-B4061 on the highway.
3. The claim petition was preferred by his father, mother, widow and the three children. The Tribunal while considering the point in issue came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 per month and in accordance with the principles of dependency, the dependency was calculated to be Rs. 4,100 per month.
4. After hearing the counsel, we have found that the dependency calculated by the Tribunal is just and proper and in view of the fact that there were a number of dependants. The income, which was assessed to be Rs. 6,000 per month is based on evidence. The deceased was an employee. The dependency calculated as Rs. 4,100 is just and proper and we confirm the same.
5. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount so awarded was in excess because the deceased himself had contributed to the accident. On the point of contributory negligence, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was driving a scooter on the road. It was the negligence of the driver of the dumper, who dashed against him and deceased died on the spot.
6. The suggestion given by the respondents to the witnesses was that the deceased himself had fallen down on the road and the injuries were sustained on that account. From the post mortem report, the Tribunal found that there were a large number of injuries and the deceased was crushed and such injuries could not be caused by fall on the road. The finding of learned Tribunal is that the deceased had died on account of dash given by the dumper and it could not be caused by fall on the road.
7. The point of contributory negligence was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and we confirm the same.
8. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the appellants urged before this Court that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was on the very lower side. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10, whereas the age of the deceased was about 31 years. There are certificates on record, which go to show that the date of birth in all the certificates was recorded to be 1.6.1962 in respect of deceased Vishal Singh Gurjar, who was qualified technician.
9. The other certificates filed on behalf of the appellants indicate that in all the certificates the date of birth of the deceased was recorded to be 1.6.1962. The Tribunal had wrongly assessed the age to be between 34 and 35 years only on the ground of oral testimony and imagination. On the perusal of the documents available on the record, which proved beyond doubt that the date of birth of the deceased was 1.6.1962, we find that the age of deceased was about 31 years at the time of the accident, and therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal holding that the age of the deceased was between 34 and 35 years, is vague. The submissions made by the respondents could not be accepted.
10. We, therefore, hold that when the date of birth of the deceased was to be 1.6.1962, the deceased at the time of accident was about 31 years of age. The multiplier applied, therefore, was very low. Now it is well established law that the multiplier has to be applied in accordance with the age of the deceased since we have earlier found the age of the deceased about 31 years, the multiplier of 10 is much less and the appropriate multiplier of 15 should have been applied.
11. Applying the multiplier of 15, we find that the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants comes to Rs. 7,38,000 (Rupees seven lakh thirty-eight thousand only).
12. No other point remains to be decided in the appeal. We allow this appeal. The amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants shall be Rs. 7,38,000 instead of Rs. 4,92,000. The other conditions shall remain the same as directed by the Tribunal.