JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants claim higher compensation. Claimant-appellant No. 1 is the widow of late Adi Meher, claimant-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are their minor children and the claimant-appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. It was claimed that the deceased died on 21.6.1993 on account of the fatal accident caused by the bus bearing No. ORS 8574 belonging to the present respondent No. 1. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of death. It was claimed that he was earning between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 3,000 per month from his tanning business. Claim application was filed claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000.
2. Respondent No. 1 in his written statement while admitting about the accident, challenged the allegations relating to age, occupation and income of the deceased. He also claimed that since the vehicle was insured, the liability, if any, should be met by the insurance company.
The insurance company (present respondent No. 2) while admitting about the existence of policy challenged about the dependency, income and compensation claimed by the claimants.
3. The Tribunal found that the deceased had died on account of the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. ORS 8574 belonging to present respondent No. 1. It was further found that the deceased was 30 years’ old. Calculating the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 600 and contribution to the family at Rs. 400 and applying the multiplier of 12, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000. It is stated at the Bar that the said amount along with interest as directed by the Claims Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants who have filed the present appeal claiming further compensation of Rs. 1,92,000.
4. The findings of the Tribunal that the death was on account of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the claimants are entitled to compensation and the liability is to be met by the insurance company have become final in the absence of any independent appeal or cross-objection by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The only question which remains to be considered in this appeal is regarding the compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was 30 years of age and there was possibility of the deceased living up to the age of 65 to 70 years. The Tribunal did not accept the story of the claimants that the deceased was having tanning business and his income was more than Rs. 2,500 per month. However, the Tribunal held that even assuming that the deceased was a labourer, the minimum wage of a labourer was more than Rs. 20 per day at that time and accordingly the Claims Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased at Rs. 600 per month. The Claims Tribunal appears to have erred on this aspect. Even assuming that the deceased had no other business or source of income, but was merely a labourer, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the minimum wage payable at that time was Rs. 30 per day. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the income of the deceased must have been more than Rs. 1,000 per month. The deceased was maintaining his wife, mother and two minor children. Keeping in view the number of dependants, it can be safely concluded that the monthly contribution to the family members must have been around Rs. 750. So calculated, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 9,000. The deceased was found to be aged 30 years. Such finding has not been challenged in any manner and, at any rate, the evidence on record clearly supports such a finding. In such view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal has definitely erred in applying the multiplier of 12. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 would be more applicable. So calculated, the amount comes to Rs. 1,44,000. Besides, the claimants are also entitled to some compensation on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss to estate, etcetera. Keeping in view all these aspects and the fact that a sum of Rs. 58,000 is stated to have been paid and keeping in view the period during which this appeal has remained pending in the High Court, I consider that interest of justice would be sufficiently met by directing the insurance company to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,05,000 to the claimants-appellants. Such amount should be paid within a period of three months failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent thereafter. Out of this enhanced amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000 should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of claimant-appellant No. 4; a sum of Rs. 25,000 each should be kept in cumulative fixed deposit for seven years in the names of claimant-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and a sum of Rs. 30,000 should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of claimant-appellant No. 1. Claimant-appellant Nos. 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw quarterly interest from their respective fixed deposits. The balance amount of Rs. 10,000 along with further interest, if any, shall be paid to claimant-appellant No. 1 in cash.
5. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. The lower court records be sent back immediately.