JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.7.1991 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 28 of 1988.
2. Claimants are Kartar Singh, father (57), Sikandar Kaur, widow (27), two daughters (minors) and two sons (minors). They claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000 against various heads for the death of Gurucharan Singh in the accident that took place on 21.10.1987 with scooter No. DIQ 1687, driven by respondent No. 1 Mukhtyar Singh and owned by respondent No. 2 Mohinder Kumar. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver and it hit the scooter of the deceased resulting in death of Gurucharan Singh on the spot.
3. Defence taken by the insurance company is that it has no knowledge about the taking place of the accident but admits that the vehicle was insured. It is denied that the vehicle was being driven in a negligent manner and at uncontrollable speed. It is further denied that deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family having income of Rs. 2,000 per month from the transport business and was spending Rs. 1,500 on the claimants. It was also alleged that the claim is exaggerated. Other respondents of the case have not opposed the claim by appearing and filing the written statement with the result that they have been proceeded ex parte.
4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the matter, gave its finding that the deceased died on 21.10.1987 due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of scooter No. DIQ 1687 owned by the respondent Mohinder Kumar and driven by respondent Mukhtyar Singh and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,58,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. This award has been challenged by the claimants through this appeal being on the lower side.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record carefully. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate, with Mr. Sharad Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently contend that the award is reasonable, therefore, deserves to be maintained. It is further contended that the claimants have put up exaggerated claim of income and dependency and the Tribunal has fixed the dependency appropriately.
6. After looking to the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimants in this case. We record our reasons as under:
Father of the deceased was 57 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident. He left behind his widow Sikandar Kaur (30) and four minor children of varying ages like 6, 8, 10 and 12 years. The deceased was the sole breadwinner in the family. He owned two trucks and his income is stated to be Rs. 2,000 per month. Out of it, he must be spending Rs. 500 on himself leaving Rs. 1,500 to the family of this size. In a case of this nature, reasonable multiplier should be 17 instead of 15 as applied by the Tribunal. Claim for damage of the scooter has not been allowed by the Tribunal.
7. In the aforesaid background, the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled should be Rs. 3,06,000 (Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 17). To this sum should be added Rs. 2,000 towards cremation expenses and Rs. 10,000 by way of consortium to Sikandar Kaur taking the total compensation to Rs. 3,18,000 (rupees three lakh eighteen thousand only). This amount shall be payable with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment within a period of two months from the date of this order, otherwise it would carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.
Parties are left to bear their own cost.