JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award dated 7.1.1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants and dismissed their remaining claim.
2. Shanti Devi and four others are the legal representatives and dependants of deceased Ram Gopal, who died in the motor accident on 4.2.1988. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jaipur for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 8,60,660/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, was that deceased Ram Gopal was working as a clerk in Post & Telegraph Department. On 4.2.1988 he was going on his bicycle from Collectorate’s side and was proceeding towards Polo Victory Cinema, Jaipur. He was paddling the bicycle on the left side of the road. The Roadways bus No. RNP 1976 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Brij Mohan Pareek, came from behind and hit Ram Gopal, who died on account of this accident. At the time of his death, Ram Gopal was aged about 41 years and his pay was Rs. 1,381/- per month. The claimants, therefore, claimed Rs. 6,35,960/- as the loss of pay and dependency; Rs. 50,000/- as loss of overtime bonus, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by the widow Shanti Devi as well as the loss of consortium to her, Rs. 50,000/- were claimed as the loss of love and affection suffered by the children of the deceased on account of untimely death of their father, Rs. 15,000/- were claimed as the amount spent on cremation and other post death rites, Rs. 10,000/- were claimed as the amount spent upon the visitors who came to offer their condolences and Rs. 400/- were claimed as the loss caused to the bicycle. The total amount claimed by the claimants was Rs. 8,60,660/-.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. No separate reply was filed by the driver of the bus. The case of the Roadways, in defence, was that the accident never took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver Brij Mohan Pareek but the fact is that when the driver of the bus was turning the bus on the turn, the conductor blew the whistle and the driver stopped the bus, came down from the bus and saw the cycle rider lying on the ground after hitting the bus.
4. The claimants, in support of their case, examined four witnesses, viz., Shanti Devi, AW 1, M.C. Baletha, AW 2, Ram-avtar, AW 3, and Bhagirath, AW 4. The non-claimants, in their defence, examined Brij Mohan Pareek, NAW 1 and Ami Lal, NAW 2. Learned Judge of the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, by his award dated 7.1.1994 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Rs. 2,40,000/- were awarded against the loss of dependency, Rs. 15,000/- were awarded to the widow and the children of the deceased towards loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- were awarded for the loss of property. The appellant filed the appeal challenging the award dated 7.1.1994 passed by the Tribunal while the claimants filed the cross-objections for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the accident never took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver but it was only on account of the negligence on the part of deceased Ram Gopal himself that the accident took place. It is also contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Judge of the Tribunal; while according to the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side and requires enhancement.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Ramavtar, AW 3, Bhagirath, AW 4 and Brij Mohan Pareek, NAW 1, are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Ramavtar, AW 3, has stated that he was posted at Khasa Kothi Circle, Jaipur on 4.2.1988. At about 12.00 in the noon, he saw the accident. The accident took place between the Roadways bus RNP 1976 and the bicycle. The bus came from the Collectorate’s side and was proceeding towards the bus stand. The man on the bicycle was also proceeding on the same direction. The bus hit the bicycle rider from behind. The bus did not blow the horn. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the bicycle. The bicycle rider was sent in an auto for medical treatment. The accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
8. Similar is the statement of Bhagirath, AW 4. He has stated that he owns a shop of ‘Daal-Bati-Churma’ at Khasa Kothi Circle, Jaipur. On 4.2.1988 he saw the accident between the bicycle and the bus but he did not know the number of the bus. The bus came from the Collectorate’s side and was proceeding towards Sindhi Camp. The bicycle rider was also proceeding in the same direction. The bus hit the bicycle. The accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver.
A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted on both these witnesses but both the witnesses stood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be elicited which could discredit their testimony.
9. Brij Mohan Pareek, NAW 1, is the driver of the bus, who has stated that on 4.2.1988 he was driving bus No. RNP 1976. The bus had left Churu at 5.30 p.m. and reached Jaipur at 11.45 a.m. The bus reached Khasa Kothi Circle and was to take a turn towards the Sindhi Camp Bus Stand. The bus was being driven at a moderate speed and before taking the turn, he blew the horn. The conductor was to show the direction. When the bus took the turn, the conductor blew the whistle and on enquiry from the conductor it was found that one bicycle rider dashed against the rear portion of the bus. He came down from the bus and saw the bicycle rider lying on the ground. He sent the injured to the hospital along with the conductor in an auto and the police constable on duty informed the police station on telephone. The police came and necessary proceedings were taken.
10. From the evidence of these three witnesses it, therefore, clearly stands established that the accident took place with the bus in question and all the evidence and the attending circumstances clearly show that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Brij Mohan Pareek. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was justified in holding Brij Mohan Pareek, the driver of the bus, liable for the accident. The evidence produced on record discloses the liability of Brij Mohan Pareek, driver of the bus, for the accident in question. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any illegality in holding the driver of the bus liable for the accident.
11. The next question which requires consideration is regarding the adequacy of the amount of compensation whether the compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is an adequate sum or it is on higher side or on the lower side? According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied a higher multiplier of 20 which is contrary to the well-established norms fixed by the Supreme Court. Ram Gopal, at the time of his death, was aged about 4172, years and in spite of that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20, which is highly excessive; while according to the learned Counsel for respondent-claimants, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side.
12. Multiplier method has been accepted by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court as a proper method for determination of the amount of compensation. The compensation determined by the multiplier method is the accepted method for ascertaining a just compensation. As per this multiplier method, first the income of the deceased is determined, then after deducting ‘/3rd of the amount of the income which is expected to be spent by the deceased on himself, the monthly income is multiplied by ‘2’ taking into consideration the future prospects of the income and then the monthly income is multiplied with ’12’ and thus the multiplicand comes which is multiplied by an appropriate multiplier.
13. In the present case, the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,381/- per month. He was aged about 41 years. The loss of dependency, therefore, comes to Rs. 920 per month. Taking into consideration the future prospects of increase in the income, if the income is multiplied by ‘2’ then the monthly loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 1,840/- per month, i.e., Rs. 22,080 per year. Looking to the age of deceased Ram Gopal at the time of his death, i.e., 41 years, multiplier of 11 can be applied in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). If the amount of compensation is determined as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas case (supra) the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,42,880/-. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- on this count, which deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,42,880/-.
14. The next question which requires consideration is whether the learned Judge of the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the loss of consortium and love and affection suffered by the claimants and Rs. 5,000/- as the loss of future prospects to the property. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loss of consortium and love and affection to the widow and children of the deceased, which is much on the lower side. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on these counts. The amount of compensation on these counts, also, deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
15. So far as the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal for the loss suffered on account of future loss to the property is concerned, that does not require any interference.
16. The claimants are, therefore, entitled for an amount of Rs. as the compensation.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant has got no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the cross-objections filed by respondent-claimants are partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,60,000/- to Rs. 2,72,880/-. The claimants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. The amount of compensation will be distributed amongst the claimants as per the scheme framed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. In facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.