- (1.)THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award to the extent of quantum of the amount of compensation, submitting that the learned Tribunal has not allowed the proper compensation and has also wrongly directed the payment of the interest on the amount of compensation only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
(2.)WE have considered the forceful contentions advanced by learned Counsel Mr. N. D. Singhal. The deceased, from the pay certificate, Exh. P/2, was found to be receiving an amount of Rs. 3,051 per month. The date of birth of the deceased was 3. 7. 1943, he had completed 44 years. Learned Tribunal, therefore, applied the multiplier of 13. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 26,889. 60 per year. It was found that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 3,49,564. 80. Learned Tribunal further allowed Rs. 10,000 and directed the payment of the total sum of Rs. 3,59,564. 80. Learned Tribunal granted the interest on the claimed amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in view of the prolonged period of pendency of the claim petition. The evidence of the claimants could only be closed on 21. 3. 1996, as such the claimants took eight years in closing their evidence. For the above circumstances the rate of interest was allowed only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
(3.)WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Learned Tribunal has taken a reasonable view in awarding the compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case on the assessment of the evidence. No illegality or perversity could be shown by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned Tribunal in its discretion on the consideration of the long pendency of the claim petition has allowed the interest less than 12 per cent. We have, therefore, found no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.