PANWAR, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dt. 27. 1. 94 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- in favour or appellant-claimant in M. A. C. Case No. 50/91 for the death of her husband Poonam Chand including interest and Rs. 45,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimant for the death of her son aged about 12 years in M. A. C. Case No. 52/91 including interest.
(2.) AGGRIEVED and dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants (for short `the claimants') have preferred the aforesaid two separate appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. Brief facts stated to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these two appeals are that on 5. 5. 1991 at about 1. 30 P. M. , deceased Poonam Chand, his son Niraj alias Pintu and Om Prakash were proceeding on a scooter from Kitnod to Balotra. After covering a distance of 1 km. , when they were on the Kitnod-Balotra road, a Nisan Truk bearing No. RSN 317 came from opposite direction, which was driven rashly and negligently in zigzag manner, suddenly came wrong side of the road and hit the scooter. Due to this accident, Poonam Chand succumbed to injuries instantaneously and his son Niraj and another occupant of scooter Om Prakash sustained severe injuries. Injured Niraj was taken to hospital at Balotra, but he could not be saved and ultimately succumbed to injuries on the same day. The claimant, who is wife of deceased Poonam Chand and mother of deceased Niraj filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of her husband and son. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence reached to the conclusion that the said accident was due to rash and negligent, driving of the truck in question by its driver respondent No. 1, Wali Mohammed and held him liable fro compensation awarded by it. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also the record of the Tribunal. It has been established by the evidence of AW. 1 Smt. Chandan Kaur that at the relevant time of accident, deceased Poonam Chand was 40 years of age and was employee of State Govt. in Commercial Taxation Department on the post of clerk and at the relevant time of accident, has salary was Rs. 2568/ -. Thus fact has been established from the salary certificate ex. 34 issued by the employer, the Commercial Taxation Department. She further stated that her son Niraj at the time of accident was about 10-12 years and was student of 5th class in Adarsh Vidhyamandir, Balotra. His academic career was bright, which is evident from Ex. 21 to 28. he was selected for admission to Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya vide Ex. 23. Thus, from unrebutted evidence of the claimants, it has been established that deceased Poonam Chand was more or less on a stable job and he was permanent employee in Commercial Taxation Department on the post of clerk on the salary of Rs. 2568/ -. The Tribunal while computing compensation without adopting the multiplier method, computed Rs. 1,40,000/- under the head `loss of income', Rs. 15,000/- for consortium and love and affection etc. Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for damage to the scooter of the deceased. To this, the Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of interest and as such awarded Rs. 1,82,000/- in case of death of Poonam Chand and for death of Niraj aged about 12 years, the tribunal computed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as consolidated interest. It is settled law that in appeal, the quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is either too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for the death of a young person of 40 years, a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- and for death of a student of 12 years having promising career, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is too low. The Tribunal has failed to adopt the correct method of computation while computing the compensation. It is settled law that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. In General Manager Kerala S. R. T. C. vs. Susamma Thomas (1), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case of capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher ). It has been further held by their Lordships that it is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. The appropriate method of computation is the multiplier method. Any dep-arture, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. This view was further reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra (2),. Thus, it settled law that in order to have the uniformity for the award, the proper course is to adopt the multiplier method in case of death of Poonam Chand. From uncontroverted evidence, the income f the deceased has been established to be at Rs. 2568/ -. It has also been established that he was a permanent employee of the State and had a future prospects of advancement in life and career. In General Manager Kerala S. R. T. C. vs. Susamma Thomas (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.
(3.) TAKING into account the future prospects and the age of the deceased, his monthly income can safely be determined to be at Rs. 4000/- and the dependency at the rate of Rs. 2000/ -. The Annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/ -. This amount needs to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to age group of the deceased. It is settled law that multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. In the instant case, deceased was 40 years of age and the Second Schedule to section 163-A of the M. V. Act, 1988 which can be taken as a guideline provides the multiplier for a different age group of the victims and for the age group from 40 years to 45 years, a multiplier of 15 is appropriate. Thus, the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- needs to be multiplied by a multiplier of 15 years purchase factor. To this added conventional such of Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of company consortium and loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs, 10,000/- for damages to the scooter. Thus, on proper computation, the total compensation works out to Rs. 4,02,000/- rounded to Rs. 4,00,000/ -. Next question comes for consideration in respect of compensation for the death of Niraj aged about 12 years. As it is evident from the record that he was a brilliant student and he would have been an earning member of the claimant and more particularly in the facts and circumstances that the appellant has lost her husband in the very same accident, her dependency would be much more at his son but for the tragic death of her son in the accident, she has been deprived of the support and contribution of her son. Taking into account the fact that he would have contributed a reasonable good sum on attaining the majority, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is just and proper compensation for the death of a young boy. The Tribunal failed to award the interest from the date of application. Sec. 171 of the Act provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making to claim as it may specify in this behalf. ;