K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THERE is no representation on behalf of the Appellants. Learned counsel for the State is present. Since the scales of compensation for death in motor accident are reasonably well settled, I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of records and with assistance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) THE deceased was 21 years of age and said to be a casual labourer. The Tribunal took the income at Rs. 1,000/ - p.m., took a contribution to the family at Rs. 600/ - p.m. and assessed a compensation of Rs. 86,400/ -. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 30,000/ -, which was received by the Applicants as ex gratia amount and awarded a compensation of Rs. 54,000/ - with interest @ 12% per annum. I will take the contribution to the family at Rs. 750/ - p.m. and having regard to the fact that it was a very modest contribution, adopt a multiplier not necessarily on the age of the parents but on the age of deceased on the lines provided in Schedule -II of the Motor Vehicles Act although Schedule -II itself was not attracted since the accident had taken place before 14.11.1994. I assess the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,89,000/ - and make an addition of Rs. 5,000/ - towards the loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total that would be payable Rs. 1,94,000/ -. The deduction of ex gratia amount is wrong in terms of the law laid by this Court in Harjit Kaur v. Tochi Transport Co., II 1986 ACC 70. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal already shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
(3.) THE award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above.;