Shamsuddin Ahmad, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alipore, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 149 of 1978. The learned Judge disposed of a claim application filed by the petitioner who suffered injuries as a result of motor accident on 10.7.1976. As a result of that accident he has lost substantial capacity to earn. He was engaged in business under the name and style 'Chhanda Trunk House'. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record. But on a perusal of. the records, it appears that the learned Judge found that the income of the victim was at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and he was 47 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned Judge considered 65 years as the normal life span and accordingly applied 15 years' multiplier and from the amount arrived at on calculation he deducted 25 per cent by reason of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Accordingly, we cannot say that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the materials appearing before it. Accordingly, we are unable to find any merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
(2.) A cross-objection has been filed and in the cross-objection a ground has been taken that the amount calculated by the learned Judge is not in conformity with the evidence adduced. The claimant himself claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/-. The learned Judge did not place reliance on this piece of evidence as no account book was filed before the learned Judge. Taking into consideration the circumstances as appeared in the evidence and the number of members maintained by the petitioner, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that his monthly earning was Rs. 300/-. It will also appear from the application itself that the claimant admitted that his present earning after he has sustained injury in the accident has been reduced to Rs. 150/-. If we take this into account, the learned Judge in effect has granted him relief taking his monthly income to be Rs. 450/-. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the submission that the learned Judge did not take into consideration the material evidence on record in assessing the compensation allowed. But in our view, the learned Tribunal made an error in law in deducting 25 per cent from the lump sum amount of compensation because of uncertainties of life. Since the Tribunal has used multiplier, it cannot deduct amount for uncertainties of life and for making lump sum payment. Accordingly, we allow the cross-objection to the extent that the petitioner will get the compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month multiplied by 15 years' multiplier. The amount of compensation will come to Rs. 54,000/-.
(3.) In the cross-objection the respondent has also taken a ground that the interest at the rate of 6 per cent was grossly inadequate. We agree with the submission made and hold that the respondent will get interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Accordingly, the cross-objection stands allowed to the extent indicated above.;