- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) Padmakar More was going on a bicycle on 9/09/1978 when he was knocked down by a bus owned by the respondent-corporation. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Narayan, father of Padmakar, Prerna his widow and Shweta a minor daughter moved a petition before the First Additional Motor Accidents Claim tribunal, Indore claiming Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as compensation. The tribunal by its award dated 27/04/1982 allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of Rs. 26,000. 00 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the application. The tribunal further directed the said amount to be apportioned as Rs. 12,000. 00, Rs. 10,000. 00 and Rs. 4,000. 00 amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively. The tribunal further directed that the share of the minor daughter be deposited in the State Bank of India, Indore in reinvestment scheme, which shall be payable to her on attaining majority. The tribunal based its findings on the following reasoning: "In view of foregoing discussion my finding is that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the motor bus by the N. A. No. 2 and as a result of the said accident Padmakar sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them on the spot. Issue No. 3 Date of birth of Padmakar as per record of the Hukum Chand Mills is 16/06/1952. He was thus 26 years of age on the date of the accident. According to pay-sheet of the Hukum Chand Mills for August 1978 Padmakar was given Rs. 411.70 paise as gross salary excluding the deduction on account of advances and Rs. 27. 00 on account of canteen and insurance. After deduction of the amount of canteen and insurance the net amount of salary comes to Rs. 384.70 paise. It appears that Padmakar was a drunkard. Naturally he might be spending more amount on himself than on his family. The dependency may be taken Rs. 150. 00 per month. Padmakar was young man of 26 years. 17 years multiplier would be just and proper in this case. Thus the gross compensation comes to 623 Rs. 30,600. 00. Out of this 15 per cent are deducted on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus the net compensation comes to Rs. 26,000. 00. I have not taken into consideration the future increment of Padmakar and therefore, the deduction on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life should have been less than 15 per cent. However, I have deducted 15 per cent keeping in view that the widow of Padmakar is young lady of about 21 years and there is more chance f her re-marriage. Out of Rs. 26,000. 00, Rs. 4,000. 00 are apportioned to the share of old father Narayan of Padmakar. Rs. 10,000. 00 to the share of minor daughter of Padmakar and Rs. 12,000. 00 to the share of widow of Padmakar. "
(3.) The claimants went in appeal against the award of the tribunal. The Corporation also filed an appeal against the judgment of the tribunal. By a common judgment dated 9/10/1984 the High court dismissed both the appeals. The High court, however, enhanced the interest awarded to the claimants from 6 per cent to 9 per cent. This appeal is by the widow and the minor daughter for enhancement of compensation. Narayan, father of the deceased has also been impleaded as pro forma respondent.;