UMA NATH SINGH, J. - (1.) DESPITE reminders by way of notices sent by the Registry, Shri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company- respondent No. 3, is not present.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This FAO arises out of an award dated 6.9.1990 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, in MAC Case No. 5 of 1987, awarding a sum of Rs. 34,176/- in a death case of a young man of 23 years, said to be employed as Laboratory Assistant. It appears that on the date of accident, i.e. 12.4.1987, deceased Davinder Singh was going from Majitha Road, Amritsar, to the Civil Hospital, Amritsar, on his bicycle. His two nieces, namely, Ravinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur, were also sitting on the bicycle. The offending vehicle (being Truck No. RSC 9764), said to be driven by Narinder Singh, respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, appeared from the opposite side. It struck against the bicycle of the deceased, causing multiple injures to him. The children sitting on the bicycle also received injuries in the accident. The deceased was shifted to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar, where he succumbed to the injuries. One Jaspal Singh is the witness of the occurrence. A report of the accident was lodged with the police the same day. As the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the claimants laid a claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. The driver of the offending vehicle filed a written reply denying the allegations. As the offending vehicle was insured, the owner of the vehicle was proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company being respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal filed a separate reply. The Tribunal, amongst others, framed the issues as to whether deceased Davinder Singh died in the road accident caused by the offending vehicle said to be driven rashly and negligently; whether the claimants were entitled to get compensation, and whether the petition was barred by time. Dr. Vasdev Sharma, Medical Officer, appeared as AW-2. He conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and also proved the post-mortem report (Ex. A-2). Mohinder Kaur (AW- 3) is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month, as he was serving in a private factory and was also doing the electricity repair work. He was unmarried. She also stated that she and her husband were fully dependent upon the deceased and they have no independent source of income. Surinder Kumar (AW-4) is an eye-witness of the accident. According to him, the offending vehicle was being driven at a fast and high speed and it struck against the bicycle on wrong side. He carried deceased Davinder Singh and two children to the hospital. He has also proved the claimants' case. Jasbir Singh (AW-5) was standing with Surinder Kumar (AW-4) on the scene of occurrence. He has corroborated AW-4. Jagmohan Joshi (AW-6) is the employer and owner of the firm, where the deceased was working. According to him, he was paying Rs. 445/- per month as salary to the deceased. He proved Ex. AW6/1, the voucher regarding payment of salary. According to him, the deceased was also earning 20% bonus, apart from the salary on the occasion of Diwali. Thakar Singh (AW-7) is the father of the deceased. According to him, the deceased was earning salary of Rs. 500/- per month. He also used to work as labourer after his employment hours. Further, he used to work with his brothers on electric repair shop. Thus, he used to earn Rs. 1,500/- per month from outside. According to him, the deceased was earning around Rs. 2,000/- per month. On the other hand, Narinder Singh driver of the offending vehicle (RW-1) stated that as the brakes of the vehicle failed, the accident took place. It appears that there is no mechanical examination report of the offending vehicle on the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal fell in serious error in calculating the dependency amount, inasmuch as it has not only deducted 1/3rd to be spent on himself, but that apart, 50% of the rest of the dependency amount also. According to him, the Tribunal has only accepted the statement of the employer, saying that he was earning around Rs. 445/- per month and not the other earnings. The deceased was a young man of 23 years, said to be healthy, and while keeping aside the amount calculated by the Tribunal, if his income is assessed as a labourer (looking to the fact that a labourer is being paid around Rs. 100/- per day), his income can be safely assessed to be Rs. 2,500/- per month. Accordingly, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 30,000/-. However, it has appeared in the evidence of his parents that he was unmarried and they had other sons also. Thus, the deceased may be spending half of the amount on himself, hence, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 15,000/- per year. Against the age group between 20 and 25, the suitable multiplier prescribed by the Schedule is 17. But looking to the age of the parents, i.e., 60 years and 65 years, only the multiplier of 13 needs to be applied, in the facts and circumstance of the case. Thus the total amount would come to Rs. 1,95,000/-. That apart, the claimants would be entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in total the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 2,05,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs. 34,176/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,05,000/- with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application. Hence, this FAO No. 899 of 1990 is, hereby, allowed, in terms of the aforesaid directions. Appeal allowed.;