JUDGMENT
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The appellant is the petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, in M.V.C. No. 353 of 1980. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 56,000/- on account of the death of his son Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari, who was employed by the owner of the truck bearing registration mark MEZ 4768 as a hamali (coolie). On one of the days when he had loaded the truck with mud, before he could get into the vehicle properly the vehicle was driven by the driver without notice as a result of which Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari fell down and the vehicle ran over him. As a result of the injuries caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver he died. The petitioner claimed Rs. 15,000/-towards mental agony and shock, Rs. 40,000/-for loss of dependency and Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses. Respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck, in his statement of objections resisted the claim. He pleaded that on account of the rash and negligent act of Rudrappa Parasappa the accident took place and not on account of his rash and negligent act. It was when the vehicle was set in motion on the date of the accident, the deceased Rudrappa Parasappa attempted to get on to the vehicle from the left side, fell down and as such suffered the injuries. Respondent No. 2 filed his statement denying the allegations of the petition. Respondent No. 3 filed a separate statement contending that the deceased Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari was employed by respondent No. 2, who was an independent contractor and was under full control of the vehicle and therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It further contended that the accident did not take place in a public place as defined under Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the matter. Respondent No. 4 in his objections statement contended that the claim was false and frivolous. The truck was engaged by the Residential Engineer of M/s. Tarapur and Co., Indal Works, Belgaum and the deceased was an employee of the said company and respondent No. 4 was in no way responsible for payment of compensation. He denied that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver.
2. On such pleadings the Tribunal framed as many as seven issues as follows:
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari died as a result of injuries sustained in the motor accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. MEZ 4768?
(2) Whether the petitioner proves that the said accident that took place on 12.12.1980 at about 12.00 noon at the quarry in Yamanapur was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. MEZ 4768?
(3) Whether the 2nd respondent is an unnecessary party and has been wrongly impleaded?
(4) Whether the deceased was working as a coolie in the said truck on the date of the accident?
(5) Whether the said deceased was in the employment of the 4th respondent and died in the course of such employment as a result of the accident?
(6) Whether the place of accident is not a public place as defined under Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the petition filed for compensation is not triable before this Tribunal?
(7) To what compensation is the petitioner entitled? If so, from which of the respondents?
On issue Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal found in the affirmative and on issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 he found that it was unnecessary to decide those issues and on issue No. 6 he held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction. On issue No. 7 he awarded Rs. 12,000/- payable by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
3. The petitioner had examined himself and one Yellappa. They deposed to the effect that the deceased Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari and PW 2 were engaged by respondent No. 4, the owner of the truck. PW 2 stated that he and the deceased were engaged in the loading of the truck; the deceased tried to get into the truck from the side where the cleaner of the truck would normally get in, but before the deceased got into the truck the driver of the truck started the vehicle with great speed as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and the truck ran over him. He further stated that the driver of the truck moved the vehicle even though the truck was not fully loaded with murum and the truck was started and moved without giving any warning. PW 2’s evidence came to be accepted by the Tribunal below as he was an independent witness. No useful information was elicited in the cross-examination of that witness to render his testimony not believable. Respondent No. 1, the driver, gave evidence in support of his pleading denying that he was in any way negligent. The Tribunal described the evidence of respondent No. 1 as self-interested testimony. It declined to decide the questions covered under issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as the claim was under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He came to the conclusion that under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the only question that was to be taken notice of is whether the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. Having regard to the decision of this court in the case of Madarsab Saheblala Kattimani v. Nagappa Vittappa Katabugol 1982 ACJ 279 (Karnataka), it overruled the objections raised in regard to jurisdiction and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the case. Accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 it came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day as a coolie and as such he was on an average earning between Rs. 300/- and Rs. 400/- a month. Having regard to the statement of the father of the deceased, viz., the petitioner, that his son was contributing Rs. 100/- per month towards family expenses, he fixed the dependency of the petitioner at Rs. 100/- per mensem and awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- on the premise that if the same were to be put in fixed deposit in any bank, it would fetch not less than Rs. 1,200/- per annum and that could be sufficient. In other words, it just compensated the loss of dependency having fixed the loss at Rs. 100/- per mensem. He certainly could not have the advantage of the decision of this court in H.T. Bhandary v. Muniyamma,, as the judgment of this court was rendered at a later date on 12.3.1985. But we do not see any reason why we should not apply the multiplier as the proper method of measuring the loss of dependency, even to the facts of this case when the matter has come up before us in appeal. The deceased was about 21 years is not in dispute. In the said Bhandary’s case (supra) this court has taken into consideration several factors in arriving at the maximum multiplier figure of sixteen subject to further reduction by scaling down for every five years of the deceased person beyond eighteen. Therefore, proper multiplier would be sixteen as the life expectancy being the national average at about 57 years. In the result accepting the finding of the Tribunal as to the dependency at Rs. 1,200/- per annum, by using the multiplier of 16, the appellant-petitioner is entitled to Rs. 19,200/- under the head loss of dependency. We find that the Tribunal has also not awarded any sum in regard to loss of expectation of life though it was bound to award some sum. Therefore, we must add under that head though the petitioner did not claim due to ignorance, having regard to the case, a sum of Rs. 4,000/-which on the admitted facts would be adequate compensation. The award of Rs. 500/- towards funeral expenses, we have to say, is just and adequate in the absence of any evidence to support the claim for Rs. 1,000/-. We, therefore, modify the award in the above terms.
4. The appellant shall receive a sum of Rs. 19,200/- under the head loss of dependency; Rs. 4,000/- under the head loss of expectation of life and Rs. 500/- towards funeral expenses with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation subject to any amount already paid by any one of the respondents held liable jointly and severally. We have made this order ex parte of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before us as they and their counsel remained absent. There will be no order as to costs in view of the success of the appellant in the circumstances of the case.