A.R.Lakshmanan, C.J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Special Appeal No. 40 of 1997 has been filed by R.S.R.T.C. questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 22.8.96 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183 of 1995. Special Appeal No. 8 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 22.8.96 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183 of 1995 whereby the award dated 18.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur has been reduced from Rs. 18,15,000 to Rs. 14,55,000.
(3.) Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the R.S.R.T.C. submitted that the learned single Judge has arrived at the finding that the dependency ought to have been worked out by the Tribunal after deducting from the consolidated pay, the amount of perks as also the income tax which the deceased would have paid. He has further submitted that according to the learned single Judge, the possible income tax which would have been paid, ought to have been deducted from the pay of Rs. 10,000 which was worked out by the Tribunal and after assessing the income tax as Rs. 2,000, the dependency of the deceased was assessed by the learned single Judge as Rs. 7,500 per month and applying the multiplier of 16, compensation was computed as Rs. 14,40,000. The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of consortium was maintained by the learned single Judge. He has contended that the learned single Judge has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 in place of 15. According to Mr. Lodha, if dependency of the claimants is assessed by applying the multiplier of 15 then the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,90,000.;