JUDGMENT
S.K Dubey and V.K. Agarwal, JJ.
1. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 11 of 1992, vide award dated 16.8.1995, passed by Additional Member of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Multai, Distt. Betul.
2. The mother is the appellant who filed an application to claim compensation of Rs. 3,52,000 for the death of her only son Baisu, aged 26 years, who died in a motor accident, caused by truck No. CPE 9454, driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3.
3. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The deceased was earning Rs. 1,100 per month but the Tribunal estimated the dependency at Rs. 3,000 per year, wherein the multiplier of 14 was applied, the amount was worked out to Rs. 42,000 but considering the fact that the deceased was the only son and steep fall in the money value awarded Rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till its realisation.
4. The appellant is illiterate rural rustic lady. Though in the examination-in-chief, she stated that the deceased was working as labourer on the truck of the respondent No. 1 and was getting Rs. 1,100 per month as wages. However, in cross-examination she was confused and stated that he used to remain out for a week or so and after return he used to give in between Rs. 30 and Rs. 40. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 250 per month. Even if the evidence about the earning of the deceased was not satisfactory, the Tribunal ought to have directed the owner to produce the wage record of the deceased. The Tribunal further committed an error in taking into account the plea taken in the written statement that the deceased used to spend his all earnings on his own expenses and in consuming the liquor. Therefore, in the absence of evidence minimum wage of an unskilled labourer at Rs. 900 per month can be taken into account. In that 1/3rd is deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 600 per mensem, yearly Rs. 7,200, applying the multiplier of 12, the amount would work out to Rs. 86,400. In this an amount of Rs. 2,000 is added towards funeral expenses, the total would come to Rs. 88,400 which the appellant would be entitled with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realisation.
5. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount as directed by us, less the amount already deposited by it within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the claimant by the Tribunal keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 673 (SC).
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. Award of the Tribunal shall stand modified, as indicated above. Counsel’s fee Rs. 700, if pre-certified. appeal allowed.