ORDER
Panwar, J.
(1). This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th April, 1996 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 417/92 RSRTC vs. Shankar Lal & others, whereby the learned Single Judge reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra, (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribunal”) for enhancement.
(2). The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that Smt. Shanti Devi along with others were travelling in Jeep in order to visit Nakodaji Temple, at about 7.30 P.M. when the jeep reached near Siwana Ashotra crossing, the bus owned by respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”) bearing No. RNG 806 came from opposite direction, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Respondent Jethu Dass, dashed against the jeep on the wrong side of the road due to which jeep over turned and Smt. Shanti Devi and many other occupants of the jeep sustained injuries. Smt. Shanli Devi and as many as four persons succumbed to injuries instantaneously.
(3). Due to aforesaid accident, her legal representalives i.e. husband, son and daughter who are appellants hereinbefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after holding trial of the case, came to the conclusion that the accident in question was solely because of rash and negligency of the driver of the bus belonging to Corporation. While deciding issue relating to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal quantified a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation and accordingly passed an Award in favour of the appellants.
(4). Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 26.8.92 the respondent-Corporation preferred an appeal before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned dated 5th April 1996 reduced the compensation from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/-.
(5). Dis-satisfied and feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby’ the compensation were reduced, the appellants who were original claimants before the Tribunal, preferred this appeal for enhancement.
(6). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Pradeep Shah as also the learned counsel Mr. B.S. Bhati representing the Corporation.
(7). It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the learned Single Judge was in error in reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal without any justifiable reason. It was also contended that the appellants have established their case before the Tribunal and the compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal was just compensation. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. B.S. Bhati, appearing for the respondent Corporation supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(8). In the instant case, as the case set up by the appellants is that the deceased Smt. Shanti Devi on the relevant date of accident was 30 years of age and used to contribute minimum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the appellants as she used to make Papers, Badiyas etc for selling and in addition to that she used to do work of embroi-daries also. Not only this but she was the house wife and also used to took after house holds. This fact has been established by the Statement of A.W.2 Shankar Lal before the Tribunal on oath. He deposed that the age of his wife was 30 years, and in addition to this witness, she has left behind minor son about 1 year of age and daughler 5 years of age. She used lo look after all the household affairs, maintained the childrens and also used to make Badiyas, Papers and used to do the work of embroidaries. Thus, by all these sources minimum monthly contribution to the appellant claimants was Rs. 1000/- per month. By selling Papers and Badiyas, she was earning and further these items were also for the consumption of family members. The testimony of the claimant-appellants remain unrebutted, inasmuch as, this witness was not even cross examined by the respondents on this material point and, therefore, necessary corollary is that the adversaries do not want to challenge that part of version, which has been deposed by the witness in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, it must be taken to be truthful. Not only this, the respondents have examined NAW 1 Jetiiu Dass, this witness also did not whisper anything in the statement with regard to age and contribution of the deceased. Thus the evidence of the appellants remain unrebutted.
(9). We have perused, scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the pleadings and evidence on record of the Tribunal and also perused the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the instant case, the case of the claimants is consistent in their pleadings and evidence led by the claimants. There is no dispute with regards to the age of deceased Smt. Shanti Devi, she was young lady of 30 years of age at the relevant time of the accident. She had left behind a young husband of 36-37 years of age, two minor children viz. Narendra Kumar and Miss. Meena Kumari, daughler at the time of accident aged about 1 year and 5 years respectively. It has been established by the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the appellant claimants that the deceased Srnt. Shanti Devi, was making Papers and Badiyas and by selling them in market, she used to earn. Such items were also made for consumption by family members, she was also doing the work of Embroidaries. Thus, her contribution to the claimants was Rs. 1,000/- per month. The evidence of the claimants remain unrebutted. Therefore, we do not find any reason to dis-believe this un-rebuttcd testimony of the claimants in this regard. We are of the opinion that the monthly contribution of the deceased to the appellant is to be determined at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.
(10). While quantifying ihe compensaiion payable to the husband or the children on the death of wife or the mother, as the case may be, many factors have to be taken into account including loss of wife’s contributions to house-hold from her own earnings, the expenses of employing house-keeper to perform the services, which the wife or the mother, as the case may be, had rendered gratituously. Expenses of sending children away for boarding and schooling, expenses of buying clothes instead of having them made by wife etc. Therefore, not only with reference to the earnings of the deceased, Smt. Shanti Devi but also for the other services provided by her in house-hold and services rendered gratituously must also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.
(11). Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the deceased was not engaged on the relevant date of accident in any profession. We are of the view, that services rendered by her to the appellants can be safely assessed at minimum of Rs. 1000/- per month and if the value of services rendered by the deceased is so assessed the monthly loss to the appellants would come to Rs. 1,000/- per month.
(12). The Legislature inserted section 163-A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the compensation on structural formula basis is provided in Second Schedule, wherein it has also been provided that notional income for compensation to those, who had no income prior to accident is taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the amount of compensation so arrived at shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining herself, had she been alive. Viewed from any stand point, it can safely be determined that monthly contribution of the deceased to the appellants would have been minimum of Rs. 1,000/-.
(13). Now comes what method should be adopted for determination and for calculation of compensation, in the fatal accident case. In G.M.-Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (1), Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in clear terms held that multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. The proper method of computation is multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extra ordinary cases, would introduced inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of the compensation. This view is further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chand (2), wherein their Lordships emphasised that the multiplier cannot exceed to 18 years purchase factor and observed that:-
“It was rightly clarified that there should be no departure from the multiplied method on the ground that Sec. 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Sec, 168(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”
(14). In the instant case, the deceased was of 30 years of age and multiplier provided in Table of Second Schedule to Section 163-A which can be taken as a guide, is 18 forage group of the deceased. Therefore, the loss is to be calculated by applying the multiplier of 18 in the present case. Thus, it comes to 1000x12x18=2,16,000/-rounded upto Rs. 2,10,000/-.
(15). Now comes as to what should be just compensation for loss of company, consortium, and love affection. The Tribunal has awarded @ Rs. 15,000/- each to the husband and two minor children and sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses. In our considered opinion, the amount under these heads as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no further enhancement. Thus, the total compensation work out to Rs. 2,57,000/- which we round up to Rs. 2,50,000/-. We are unable to uphold the judgment of learned Single Judge reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,20,200/- for no cogent reasons. It is settled position of law that in appeal, interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case, the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal could not be termed too excessive nor the view taken by the learned Single Judge, which merely reduced the award without giving any supporting reasons to salisfy legal requirement, can be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge and modified the award Rs. 2,50,000/-,
(16). In the result, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 1.2.1988, of course, after adjustment of the amount paid, if any, already to the appellant- claimants.
(17). Now comes the distribution of the compensation amongst the claimants out of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 80,000/- and interest thereon will be paid to the appellant-claimant No.1 and Rs. 85,000/- each along with interest thereon will be paid to the appellant-claimants No.2 and 3 respectively.
(18). The amount payable to the appellant-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposits Account with the Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank at first instance for 5 years and will be renewed from time to time till they attained majority. In this case, the vehicle involved in accident was under a valid insurance and, therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to deposite the aforesaid amount of compensation within two months frorn the date of judgment with the Tribunal. No order as to cost.