JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgments of learned Single Judge in FAO No. 641 of 1980 decided on February 21, 1985.
2. Adumberated facts of the case are that the claim petition filed by widow and minor child of Corporal R.C. Yadav of the Indian Air Force was decided by the Tribunal wherein an award of Rs. 1,05,600/- was granted to the claimants. At the time of death claimant-daughter was aged two years. The deceased was drawing Rs. 735/- per month and he had 22 years of service ahead. The Tribunal determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 550/- per month and adopting a multiplier of 16 compensation of Rs. 1,05,600/- was awarded.
3. The learned Single Judge approved this amount of compensation but granted interest at the rat of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment. The learned Single Judge also affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that this accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving or the scooter driver.
4. In this appeal the claimants have prayed that multiplier of 20 should have been applied and further that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the future prospects of promotion of the deceased in service. Hence they prayed for enhancement.
5. Respondents 1(i) and (iii) and 2 filed cross-objections assailing the findings recorded about rash and negligent driving of scooter driver and holding him responsible for the vehicular death of the deceased. According to these respondents, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge both have awarded compensation which is on a higher side. The dependency of the claimants should not have been determined at Rs. 550/- per month as the mess expenses of the deceased alone amounted to Rs. 200/- per month.
6. The appellants’ learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a Corporal in the Indian Air Force. He had to serve for 22 years more. PW-7 Flying Officer V.N.L. Kutty has stated so and has further testified that the deceased would have drawn salary of Rs. 1042/- in future. According to the learned counsel these future prospects of the deceased are not taken into consideration by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. According to him, if future prospects would have been taken into consideration, the dependency would have been determined at a higher rate than Rs. 550/- per month. To buttress his contention he has relied on Smt. Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 656 (S.C.)
7. The respondents’ learned counsel, relying on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 537 (S.C.), strongly stressed that this is the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court, wherein future prospects of the deceased are not taken into consideration. The deceased was earning Rs. 735/- per month only at the time of his death. The dependents are his widow and minor child (at the time of accident). It is proved on record that the mess expenses of the deceased were Rs. 200/- per month. Dependency is to be determined on the basis of unit system. In this case there were only 2 1/2 units. Thus, the dependency of these claimants should have been determined at Rs. 428/- and not at Rs. 550/- per month and if the mess expenses of the deceased are to be deducted, then the dependency would be further reduced to Rs. 228/-. Learned counsel contended that while determining the annual dependency of the deceased on the above scale, the learned Single Judge fell into an error in affirming the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8. Concededly, the deceased died in a vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter driver, as during arguments that finding is not assailed before us.
9. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, in Trilok Chandra’s case (supra) the deceased was aged 26 years. His earning capacity was determined at Rs. 300/- per month; Rs. 200/- were deducted on account of his personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 24 an amount of Rs. 57,600/- was awarded. The High Court held that the deceased was aged 26 years instead of 35 years and adopting a multiplier of 34, the High Court awarded Rs. 81,600/-. Considering these facts, the Supreme Court observed :-
“We had indicated we would not interfere with the amount awarded, since in our view, while the multiplier used is excessive, we are satisfied that a very low multiplicand was used as the loss of dependency. If we were to correct the multiplicand and use the correct multiplier, the compensation would work out to near about the same figure.”
10. In Smt. Sarla Dixit’s case (supra) the Apex Court has taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. At the time of accident the deceased was drawing Rs. 1500/- per month. The Apex Court held that the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs. 4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs. 2,200/-. Rs. 2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. Deducting l/3rd and then adding same amount by way of average personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was determined Rs. 1450/-, rounded upto Rs. 1,500/-. In that case the deceased was 27 years old and a multiplier of 15 was adopted.
11. Thus, it is apparent that in this case, the Apex Court has taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. In this case the deceased was Corporal in the Indian Air Force and was to serve for 22 years more. As per the statement of Flying Officer V.K.L. Kutti in future the deceased would have been entitled to get salary of Rs. 1,042/-. Thus, taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, his monthly income can be determined at Rs. 1,042/-. The deceased was to support his widow and minor daughter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the dependency of the claimants can be determined at Rs. 650/- per month. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Hence a multiplier of 16 would be an appropriate multiplier. Thus, the claimants, in our considered view, are entitled to get Rs. 1,24,800/- (650 x 12 x 16). The learned Single Judge has not awarded any compensation to the claimants on account of loss of consortium, which in our considered view, the claimants are entitled to get to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus the claimant were entitled to get Rs. 1,34,800/-from the respondents from the date of petition till realisation. They are further entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of claim petition. The appeal is allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 4,000/-. Resultantly, cross-objections are dismissed.