JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, dated November 2, 1988, which had awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of Gurjit Singh who had died in a vehicular accident on September 4, 1987. The Tribunal did not award any interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, Ajmer Kaur, the mother of the deceased, had filed civil miscellaneous application with the prayer that she be transposed as appellant in the appeal who was otherwise impleaded as a respondent in the appeal filed by the minor children of the deceased through their mother. The said application was ordered to be disposed of with the main case.
3. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, learned counsel for the respondent company, has not opposed the civil miscellaneous application. Accordingly, Ajmer Kaur is transposed as appellant in the present appeal. Even otherwise, under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, the Court has jurisdiction and power to transpose the respondent as appellant.
4. The claimants have impugned the award of the Tribunal on the grounds, first, that the Tribunal had not applied a proper multiplier
in the case of the deceased who was 28 years old; secondly, that the dependency of the claimants has been wrongly assessed; and thirdly, the Claims Tribunal did not award any interest on the amount of compensation which it ought to have granted from the date of filing of the claim petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is no error in the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
6. In the instant case, the death of Gurjit Singh deceased who had died on November 13, 1987 is not in dispute. The only question which has cropped up for our consideration is with regard to compensation. It has been proved on record that Gurjit Singh was 28 years old at the time of his death and was employed as a peon in the Office of S.D.M., Patiala and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 817/-. The deceased had left behind four children, a widow and an aged mother who were totally dependent upon him. It does not appeal to logic that out of the salary of Rs. 817/- the deceased was spending Rs. 500/- per month on the family and a sum of Rs. 317/- as self-maintenance. In lower class families, if the number of family members is large, the general tendency of the bread-earner of the family would be to keep his needs to the bare minimum and provide maximum from his salary for the upkeep of the family. In this view of the matter, the monthly dependency of the claimants on the deceased
cannot be less than 2/3rd, i.e., Rs. 550/-. In this manner, the annual dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 6,600/- (Rs. 550/-x 12).
7. The other important aspect of the matter is that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of his death. Had he survived, he would have superannuated at the age 58 years. Considering the young age of the deceased, in my view, 20 would be the most suitable multiplier. Applying the same, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 1,32,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has overlooked the judicial pronouncements made from time to time by the
Courts that interest on the compensation is always awarded from the date of the claim application. The claimants-appellants are thus awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the claim petition. The compensation will be shared by the claimants equally. The amount falling to the share of the minors is to be deposited in FDRs in a scheduled bank till they attain majority.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. The compensation already awarded is to be adjusted. There will be no order as to costs.