JUDGMENT
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The appellant, being aggrieved by the award dated 29.10.1987 passed in Claim Case No. 25/87 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, has preferred this appeal for enhancement.
2. Brief facts leading to the claim petition are that on 21.12.1982 deceased Mushtaq was driving vehicular chassis No. 165/1 from Indore to Ahmedabad. When he reached on the bridge of Kalaria village, another Vehicle No. C.P.M. 8197 which belonged to the respondent No. 1 Abdul Shaqur and insured with the respondent No. 3 came and dashed the chassis. At the material time the truck was being driven by the respondent No. 2. It was also alleged that because of the accident the deceased was thrown off and was over run by the truck. The appellant in her claim petition submitted that the deceased was employed in M/ Section Ishwar Alloys from where he was drawing salary of Rs. 500/- p.m. From December, 1982 he became the chassis driver and was getting Rs, 30/- per day. According to the claimant the total income of the deceased was Rs. 900/- p.m. and she was entitled to Rs. one lac as damages/compensation.’
3. There is no dispute that the truck C.P.M. 8197 belonged to the respondent No. 1, was insured with the respondent No. 3 and at the material time was being driven by the respondent No. 2. The defence of the respondents was that the deceased Gubbukhan alias Mushtaq Mohammad was driving the chassis after consuming liquor. They also alleged that immediately after notice of oncoming truck the deceased applied brakes, could not control the vehicle and fell down from the chassis. According to them it was self invited accident.
4. The Trial Court held that the deceased was not negligent and the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The deceased died as a result of the accident. It also held that the deceased was earning Rs. 375/- p.m. The Trial Court after coming to this conclusion held that the deceased must have been spending Rs. 75/- on his own self and thereafter apportioned the sum of Rs. 300/- equally as expenses of the deceased and the claimant. It accordingly held that the dependency was Rs. 150/- p.m. or Rs. 1800/- per year. Applying the multiplicand of 16 it awarded Rs. 28,800/-, Rs. 5,000/-towards consortium, and interest @ 12% p.a. was also awarded.
5. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum has preferred this appeal for enhancement. It was contended by the appellant’s Counsel that the Trial Court was wrong in holding that the deceased was earning only Rs. 375/- p.m. According to him from the statement of A.K. Koshal (P.W. 4) it is clear that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 375/- p.m. and he received over time of Rs. 159/-. It was also submitted that from the evidence of Smt. Munabbar Bi it is clear that the deceased was gainfully employed and was working as driver of chassis and was earning Rs. 30/- per day. According to the learned Counsel, the income would not be less than Rs. 900/- p.m. It was also contended that the Trial Court was wrong in deducting Rs. 75/- as personal expenses. He, therefore, submitted that the claimant is entitled to an enhancement.
6. On the other hand Shri Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that from the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased was not in a stable job. The over time is not a part of the salary. The Trial Court was right in holding that the deceased’s income was Rs. 375/- p.m. He submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. It was al so contended by the respondents’ Counsel that the Trial Court was wrong in applying multiplicand of 16 because from the statement of the claimant it is clear that the deceased was 46-47 years of age.
8. From the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased was earlier working with M/s. Ishwar Alloys. His Salary was Rs. 375/- p.m. and in June, 1981, Rs. 159/- were paid to him as overtime. From the cross-examination of A.K. Koshal (P.W. 4) it is clear that the salary was Rs. 375/- p.m. but the over time was not regularly paid. According to this witness for the month of April, 1981 and May 1981 over time amount was not paid to the deceased. It would thus be clear that the deceased was drawing Rs. 375/- in June, 1981.
9. From the evidence of Babulal (P.W. 5) it is clear that the deceased was working as a Chassis driver and was getting Rs. 30/- per day apart from the allowance of Rs. 20/-. According to this witness the driving work is not regular. For the month of September he got the work for 15 days and for the month of August he was employed for 20-22 days. From his statement it would be clear that a chassis driver is ordinarily employed in such driving work for a period of 15-20 days in a month. Taking an average it would be 17 days in a month. If the driving salary and the allowances are to be treated as Rs. 50/- then the monthly income would be Rs. 850/-.
10. From the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased employed himself in chassis driving only a month before of the accident. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., has held that ‘having regard to the prospects of advancement in future career, respecting which there is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- as the gross income.’ The Supreme Court on the basis of future prospects came to the conclusion that it would not be proper to hold that the annual income of Rs. 1,032/- on the date of the accident would remain static. It was held that looking to the future prospects the higher estimate of the monthly income would not be improper.
11. In the instant case it is clear that the deceased left his earlier employment to have better income. If his earlier income was Rs. 375/- and thereafter he could earn Rs. 850/- p.m. I would not be wrong in holding his monthly income as Rs. 600/-. Out of this total amount obviously 60% will have to be deducted, towards personal expenses because he would be called upon to travel as a driver. I hold the dependency at 40% of the total of Rs. 600/- as Rs. 240/-, which comes to Rs. 2,880/- per year, or say Rs. 2,900/- per year.
12. It is to be noted that the deceased was working as a heavy vehicle driver. From the evidence of Smt. Munabbar Bi (P.W. 3) it is clear that the age of the deceased was about 46-47 years at the relevant time. In case of a driver, who would ordinarily not be gainfully employed for driving a chassis after attaining the age of 60 years the multiplicand of 12 in the circumstances of the case would be proper.
13. Accordingly the appellant is entitled Rs. 34,800/- say Rs. 35,000/- as damages. To this the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of estate is to be added as Rs. 10,000/ -. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 45,000/- as damages.
14. The appeal is thus allowed in part. I direct that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs. 45,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till realisation. The respondents would be jointly and severally liable to answer the claim. There shall be no order as to costs.