RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur dt; 23.5.85 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 47/82(52/81).
(2.) ON 29.7.80, Narnedra Kumar Gandhi met an accident with bus No. GRI 6861, a vehicle owned by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called Corporation). As a result of which Narnedra Kumar Gandhi died Respondent No. 2 to 6 who are respectively widow, daughter, son and mother of the deceased and were dependent on him lodged the claim for compensation under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the Jafar Miyan who was the driver of the bus owned by the Corporation at the time of accident. The age of the deceased was between 27 to 30 years, the annual income of the deceased was estimated at Rs. 29,000/ - of which the estimated expenditure on deceased was held to be 10,000/ - rupee per annum, Rs. 19,000/ - were held to be spent on his dependents and on this promise by taking in to consideration the age of parents of the deceased, the tribunal applied multiplier of 25 and awarded after taking into consideration the medical expenses, damages for pain and anxiety and for loss of consortium a total Rs. 4,82,200/ - alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the sum with effect from the filling of the application.
(3.) IN the appeal, the basic findings have not been disputed. Only contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier of 25 in arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants and has also not taken into consideration that payment is made in lumpsum which provides a regular income for which reasonable deduction ought to have been given. The compensation ought not to be more than what could yield income of equal to amount of dependency by adopting appropriate to multiplier. The tribunal has not taken into consideration these facts, the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant was that taking into consideration the age of the deceased and amount of dependency on the identitcal multiplier ought to be 15 and not 25.;