JUDGMENT
K.C. Agrawal, J.
1. This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment of the Motor Claims Tribunal dated 2-5-1979 awarding Rs. 47,000/- as compensation to the respondents from the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.
2. The respondents filed’ a petition claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the death of Amar Singh in an accident which occurred on February 10, 1977 at 7.45 P.M. Amar Singh was the husand of respondent No, 1. Whereas the father of Ajit Singh, the minor son. The allegations made in the claim petition was that on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus No. U.S.T. 4765 belonging the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter- referred to as the Corporation), Jhota-Boggi (bullock cart) of the deceased Amar Singh plying on the road was completely smashed and in that accident Amar Singh received serious injuries to which be subsequently succumbed in the hospital on 11-2-1977. The respondents claimed that the deceased was 29 years of age.
3. The Corporation admitted that Bus No. U.S.T. 4765 met with an accident on the 10th of February, 1977 in which Amar Singh died and the bullock cart was damaged.
4. In the written statement, the Corporation did not challenge that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Counsel for the Corporation even conceded before the court below that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The question which was raised before the court below was that Smt. Atri pleaded on its behalf that Ajit Singh was not his son. Evidence was led by the claimants by producing the Kutumb Register and the witnesses. The court below relied on the witnesses of the respondents and decided issue No. 3 in their favour.
5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the court below should have applied the multiplier system for calculating the compensation which is most scientific and, as sucb, the award given is liable to be slashed down. The court below found and wichract(?) was not disputed before us, was that the deceased was 29 years of age and if he would have lived upto 65 years of age, he could have supported the family for 36 years. The view taken by the court below appears to us to be sound and correct.
6. Average income, according to the finding of the court below, of the deceased was Rs. 15/-per day. In arriving at that finding, the court below relied on the statement of Smt. Atri (PW 2). Nothing could be pointed out by the appellant’s counsel to show that the finding of the Tribunal accepting the statement of the respondent was incorrect. Out of Rs. 15/- earned by the deceased the court below deducted Rs. 5/- which the deceased Amar Singh might be spending for providing fodder to the bullocks and repairs etc. needed for the maintenance of the Buggi. After having ¦ deducted Rs. 5/- the Tribunal came to the finding that the total income of the deceased, if calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day for a month would be Rs. 250/-. We find ourselves in complete agreement of this finding. The total pecuniary loss would, therefore, come to Rs. 54000/- i.e. Rs. 1500/-x 36 years. Out of this, deduction of lump sum payment was made to the extent of 1/6th of the total amount. The deduction came to Rs. 9000/-. The total amount of compensation came to Rs. 45,000/- with Rs 2000/- in addition was found to the payable to the respondents on account of the loss suffered due to the death of the bullock and damage done to the Buggi. These losses calculated by the court below are very moderate and it is not possible to hold that the judgment rendered is incorrect.
7. Counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in Smt. Radha Agrawal v. State of U.P. and M.P.S. R.TC. v. Sudhakar A.I.R. 1977 SC 1189, in support of his submission that the deduction of l/6th because of lump sum payment was incorrect and that should have been at least 25%. It was suggested that respondents 1 and 2 would have received the amount determined in driblets appeared over in 36 years and, as such, the justice required the compensation to be deducted by 25%. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the appellant’s counsel. Deduction in lieu of lump sum payment is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. In some cases, deduction of 25% may be justified whereas in others it may not be. The decision on this question depends on various factors such as the amount assessed as compensation. In a case where the amount is assessed at a large, circumstances may justify deduction of 25% but not where it is a small figure. In the instant case, total compensation found payable to respondents 1 and 2 was Rs 54,000/- and, as such, deduction of 25% out of the same would largely reduce the compensation and that would be in our opinion, unjust.
8. We are unable to accept that the judgment of the court below is erroneous because it did not apply the multiplier system and determined the compensation in accordance with the same. The system adopted by the court below is recognized in law. The deceased was 29 years of age at the time of the accident. By determining the average span as 65 years and annual dependency, the court below justifiably multiplied it.by 36.
9. We find no merit in this appeal.
10. Cross-objection has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. Counsel for the respondents submitted before us only that Under Section 110-CC, the court below should have allowed interest on the quantum of compensation determined by it and as interest had not been awarded, the award is liable to be modified to that extent. Section 110-CC, empowers the court or the Claims Tribunal to award simple interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf at the time of passing of the award in addition to the amount of compensation. There is no prohibition under this section that the Tribunal shall not award interest at the rate more than 6%. This section gives discretion to the Tribunal to award interest at a reasonable rate on the amount awarded after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, of each case. In the instant case, the court below committed an error in not awarding interest. In the circumstances, it appears to us that the respondents 1 and 2 be held entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% on the amount awarded.
11. For the reasons given above, the appeal filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is dismissed, whereas the Cross-objection of the respondents is allowed partly. On the amount of compensation, interest would be payable at the rate of 9% with effect from the date of filing of the application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents would be entitled to get costs of this appeal.
