JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals, one by claimants for enhancing of amount of compensation and another by non claimants for reducing the amount of compensation, have been filed against the judgment/award dated 28. 10. 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 850/1998.
(2.) THE claimant Smt. Navratan Devi and Others filed an application under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in respect of death of late Sh. Giriraj Prasad Ladiwal, who died in an accident, arising out of the motor vehicle, took place on 29. 07. 1998. A total sum of Rs. 31,85,000/- was claimed as compensation under varies heads in the claims application by the claimants. The non applicants contested the claim application by filing a written reply, wherein it was stated that the income of deceased has been mentioned at a higher side in the claim application. The contributory negligence of the deceased was also pleaded. Learned tribunal framed five issues. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. Learned tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 28. 10. 1999 passed an award of Rs. 9,21,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the non applicants with a condition to make the payment of amount of award within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount of award shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i. e. , 27. 10. 1998. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants contended only one submission about the multiplier of 9 applied in the present case looking to the age of the deceased. He submits that as per finding of the tribunal itself, the deceased was 51-52 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, as per second schedule corresponding to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 11 should have been applied by the tribunal. He also contended that interest should have been awarded without any condition.
(3.) MR. Lamba, Dy. G. A. submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 7 in place of 9 ought to have been applied by Tribunal. However, he has not referred any provision of law or citation of any judgment in support of his contention. His next contention is that award of interest on failure to make payment within 45 days, amounts to levy of penalty which is not provided under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, this condition is liable to be set aside. He also submits that even if interest has to be awarded the rate of interest should not be more than 9% as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal and also record of the tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants as well as Dy. G. A. , both have not challenged the findings in respect of negligent driving of the vehicle as well as age and income of the deceased. ;