JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. This, ‘appeal is directal against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Shimla in MACC No. 9-S/2 of 1990 dated 29-5-1991.
2. Truck HPS-7610 belonged to H.P. State Electricity Board. Shri Brijender Singh was the driver. On 27-11-1988, it was coming from Luhri to Nithcr met with an accident and fell into the Nitla, At the time of accident, deceased Ghali Ram (hereafter Ghali-Ram) was one of the occupants in it. He died in this accident. According to the claimants, the accident look place due to rash and negligent driving of Driver’ Brijender Singh. Ghali Ram was 40 years old and at that lime was working as private Mason and Carpenter. His income was Rs. 1300/- p.m. and he left behind his widow and three sons who were dependent on him. Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs has been claimed from the respondents. The petition was barred by time, therefore, it was pleaded that the delay was due to the assurances given to them by the respondents that adequate compensation would be paid to them. They waited for a long lime but when it was not given, the claim petition had to he filed. Respondents contested this claim. It wasdcnied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving ‘by truck driver. It is also pointed out that the .petition was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues :
1) Whether the deceased S/Shri Ghali Ram and Kumari Nirmala Devi had died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck driver Shri Brijender Singh of truck No. NPS-7610 which
truck belonged to H.P.S.E.B. as alleged if so its
effect?
OPP
2) If issue No. I supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners of each petition are entitled to and from which of the respondents?
OPP.
3) Whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, in question’.’
OPP.
4) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?
OPR.
5) Relief.
3. The Tribunal held that Ghali Ram died in this accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving by driver Brijindcr Singh of this truck belonging to H.P. State Electricity Board. It was also held that claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 96.000/- from the respondents. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, hence this appeal.
4. First question canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the parties relates to limitation. Sh. Jamalta forceably contended that the tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay since the claimants failed to explain the delay in filing the petition satisfactorily. Mrs. Shayama Dogra on the other hand urges that the circumstances for the late filing of this appeal were duly explained before the tribunal and it was pointed out that the petition was not filed in time before the tribunal due to the assurances emended by the respondents that they would be adequately compensated. When they waited for long and the compensation was not given, the petition was filed. In these circumstances, it was the fit case where limitation ought to have been condoned. We need not examine this question since it is covered by Division Bench decisions of this Court, namely.
FAO (MVA) 41/92 Sadh Ram v. Stale of H.P…
FAO (M V A) 302/92 Smt. Kanta Jain v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and FAO (MVA)65/93 Moti Lal v.General Manager. This decision was
later followed by this Court in FAO (MVA) 112/
88 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Top Bahadur and also subsequent decisions. In all these it was been held that Motor Vehicles (Amendment). 1994 is a beneficial piece of legislation and has retrospective effect so far as linitiation is concerned. Therefore, they will govern those cases which have been filed under the previous Acts which prescribe particular period within which claim petitions were to be filed.
5. The next question is what compensation should be awarded in this case. Mrs. Shyama Pogra learned, counsel for the appellants
contended that the claimants should be awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 3. lakhs. Explaining this submission, it was pointed out that Ghali Ram was a Mason and an agriculturist. From both these sources, he was earning Rs. 2000/- p.m. He was 40 years old at the time of accident. The multiplier in this kind of case should be 20. In the claim petition against Item 4 the claimants have stated thai they have 5 bighas of land and the deceased was doing carpendary and masonry work also and was earning Rs. 35/- per day and monthly income was Rs. 1300/-. Again, against item 6 of the claim petition; monthly income has been stated Rs. 1300/-. Of course, while appearing as witness (PW 1) she has stated that the income of the deceased from masonary work was Rs. I500/– p.m. and Rs. 6000/- p.a. from the land, taking the total to Rs. 2000/- p.m. It is not possible to accept this statement when in the claim petition the claimants have specifically stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1300/- p.m. This amount has not been divided into two sources, therefore, it is
to be taken that from both these sources the deceased was earning Rs. 1300/- p.m. Contention of Sh. R.S. Jamalta that there is no satisfactory evidence that the Ghali Ram was a mason and was earning this much of income is not acceptable. Mrs. Mani Devi (PW 1) has not only mentioned this fact in the claim petition but also supported
11 while appearing as a witness in this case. She has specifically pointed out that Ghali Ram was a mason and there is no reason why her statement should be doubted and therefore rejected. Jia Lal (PW 2) has also stated that, Ghali Ram wava Mason and had also 5/6 bighas of land. On the basis of this evidence, we hold that Ghali Ram was a Mason. Now the question is how much he was earning by this source. The accident took1 place on 27-11-1988. During this time the wages of Mason were normally between Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- perday. Besides. Ghali Ram had agricultural land, therefore, he must be earning something out of it. This way il can be safely held that as lime of accident the deceased was earning Rs. 1300/- p.m. Applying the unit system for calculating compensation, the family dependency was Rs. 975/- p.m. after deducting 2 unil of expenditure for the deceased. The annual dependency would therefore, be Rs. 11,700/-. Now the question arises what multiplier should
be applied in this case looking to the age of Ghali Ram and the widow and minors left by him who were entirely dependent on Ghali Ram being the only bread earner of the family. Sh. Jamalla vehemently opposed this submission and submitted that the multiplier used by the tribunal is quite adequate and should not be disturbed. Giving careful consideration to this question and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this ease, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be most reasonable and appropriate in this case. In addition Rs. 6000/- is allowed towards loss of love and affection and mental shock and agony etc. as allowed by the tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to compensation (Rs. 11.700 x 15 + Rs. 6000) of Rs. 1,81,500/-. This amount will carry interest @ I2% p.a. from January 15, 1990 till the date of deposit. The respondents wilt deposit the balance amount within a period of two months. Costs on the parties. It be paid through counsel.