JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.
2. The deceased was one Narayan Das. Originally the claim petition was preferred by 4 claimants being respectively the widow, the daughter, the son and the mother of the deceased. However, the daughter died during the pendency of the claim before the Tribunal and her name was deleted thereat. The son has died during the pendency of this appeal and the application seeking striking out his name from the array of the appellants was filed before this court. That application is allowed as not opposed. The counsel for the appellants shall carry out the amendment in the cause title within 3 days, failing which the office shall carry out the amendment.
3. The relevant facts not beyond the pale of controversy at this stage may briefly be noticed. Late Narayan Das died an accidental death on 14.3.1989 at 7.30 p.m. on A.B. Road near village Panihar, Tehsil Gwalior. Truck No. CIW 7075 owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 was driven at the material time by the respondent No. 1 who was in the employment as driver of the respondent No. 2. The truck was driven with rashness and negligence resulting in the accident causing serious injuries to the deceased. The postmortem report, Exh. P-3, shows that the deceased had injuries spread throughout over his body resulting in his death on 21.3.1989 at 3 p.m. The deceased was aged about 48 years and was an agriculturist by occupation.
4. The Tribunal has, upon appreciation of the extensive evidence adduced, found that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month, out of which he could be taken to be spending Rs. 200/- per month on himself and thereby contributing the remaining Rs. 200/- to his family consisting of the claimants. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 8 and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs. 200/- (Sic. Rs. 19,200/- ) as compensation payable to the claimants.
5. Though the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has laid a challenge to the finding of Rs. 400/- p.m. as the earning of the deceased submitting that the figure arrived at was too low. However, we are not impressed. The claimants-appellants adduced no documentary evidence and the Tribunal had to rely on the testimony of Vidya Devi, the widow and one Baluram the only two witnesses on the point, whose testimony is too vague and generalised to enable determination of the near exact earning of the deceased. The finding, in our opinion, calls for no interference.
6. On two counts, however, the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellants merits consideration. Having determined the monthly earning of the deceased, the Tribunal did err in discounting the same by one-half while arriving at the figure of dependency. In a family of 5 including the deceased, depending on agriculture as the only source of earning, it would be too much to hold that the deceased would have been spending one-half on himself specially in a poor family. In our opinion, the Tribunal should not have held more than an amount of Rs. 150/- being spent by the deceased on himself. As such the figure of dependency should have been held to be Rs. 250- per month. We hold it accordingly. Then arises the question of choosing an ideal multiplier. Without labouring much on the point, we straightway proceed to refer to a Division Bench decision of this court in State of M.P. v. Ashaclevi 1988 ACJ 846 (MP), wherein one of us (S.K. Dubey, J.) spoke for the court. That decision has been followed in two subsequent Division Bench decisions, namely, Bhagwati Bai v. Satish M.A. No. 103 of 1991; decided on 14.7.1992 and Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyabai M.A. No. 157 of 1983; decided on 23.6.1992. In both these decisions, the other one of us (R.C. Lahoti, J.), speaking for the court, held that the deceased being around 50 years of age an ideal multiplier to be adopted would be ’12’. In our opinion, the multiplier of 12 should have been adopted in the present case also.
7. On the abovesaid principle, we assess the annual dependency at Rs. 3,000/- and adopting the multiplier of 12 fix the loss of dependency at Rs. 36,000/- .
8. We also agree with the learned counsel for the appellants in holding that the death being not instantaneous, a reasonable amount of compensation for mental pain and suffering suffered by the deceased should also have been allowed. A period of 7 days had intervened between the date of the accident and the date of death. The testimony of Dr. V. K. Dewan, PW 4, read with post-mortem report shows that the deceased suffered a number of injuries on his head, hands, legs, etc. He had also suffered fracture of four ribs. He was admitted in Neurosurgery Department of Medical College Hospital, Gwalior. In our opinion, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- would be an ideal figure of compensation to be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 40,000/-. The appeal stands allowed to that extent. In supersession of the award of the Tribunal it is ordered that the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- payable with interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19.5.1989, till realisation subject to adjustment of the amount already realised. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the abovesaid amount from the insurance company, respondent No. 3. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal which are quantified at Rs. 500/- in addition to the costs awarded by the Tribunal.