Inder Sen Israni, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated June 15, 1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 142 of 1983.
(2.) IT will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that deceased Suresh Kumar, aged 26 years was fatally injured in an accident caused by bus No. RRB 2869 on account of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2. The bus hit the deceased on the wrong side of the road, who died on the spot. The claimant -Appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on March 13, 1983 claiming a sum of Rs. 2,97,000/ - along with interest as compensation. Learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, passed an award of Rs. 135,600/ - in favour of the claimant -Appellants. The contention of Mr. G.C. Mathur, Learned Counsel for the Appellants, is that even if the monthly income, which was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,000/ - is accepted, the Tribunal has erred in deducting Rs. 400/ - on account of personal expenses of the deceased and has also wrongly applied the multiplier of only 18 years, even though the deceased was a young man of 26 years. The contention of the Learned Counsel is that usually the average age taken by the various courts in such matters is 70 years and a multiplier of 44 years should have been applied. It is further contended that a person who had a wife, father and mother to look after, could not be expected to spend more than 1/4th of his income on his own expenses. Therefore, the dependency of the claimants should have been placed at Rs. 750/ - p.m. and not Rs. 600/ - as held by the learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel further contends that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, which should have been at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel that the deceased was the only son of his aged parents, who unfortunately lost his life in an accident, but nothing has been given to the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on account of love and affection. Apart from this the contention of the Learned Counsel is that a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/ - has been awarded to the young widow, Appellant No. 1 who was aged only 22 years at the relevant time, on account of loss of consortium. Learned Counsel submitted that Rs. 50,000/ - were claimed as consolidated amount on this account, which should have been allowed. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,000/ - awarded as funeral expenses is rather very low as in these days of high prices, ordinarily the expenses of Rs. 3,000/ - have to be made out for funeral expenses and connected ceremonies.
(3.) MR . Jagdeep Dhanker, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, contends that the father of the deceased was working as teacher at the relevant time, therefore, his dependency on the deceased was not much. Since the deceased had no children, the Tribunal has rightly held the dependency amount to be Rs. 600/ - p.m. which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that on account of the same circumstances the multiplier was kept at 18, which also seems to be quite reasonable. It is further contended that there is no hard and fast rule that the interest be awarded at 12 per cent per annum and the Tribunal in its discretion has awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, which is quite justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/ - as consortium to the widow, Appellant No. 1, which also is quite reasonable. Regarding funeral expenses, the contention of the Learned Counsel is that no details were given and the trial court has rightly awarded Rs. 1,000/ - under this head.;