I. S Israni, J. - (1.) This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 4-3-1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur by which the respondents were awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 42,500. The respondent have,also filed cross-objection dated August 29, 1987 against the award and have prayed for enhancement of the compensation. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that the deceased Salim S/o respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was travelling in tractor on payment from Dholpur to Bari. On the way, the tractor met with an accident in which deceased Salim died. After recording the evidence of both the parties the learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 500 for funeral expenses totalling to Rs. 42,500 in all.
(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel Shri K. C. Sharma appearing for the appellants is that the trial Court has erred in applying multiplier of 38 years and should have applied multiplier of 20 years only even though admittedly the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. It is contended that no evidence medically or otherwise has been produced to establish that the grand-father or grand-mother of the deceased lived upto a particular age which may be taken to be equating factor for fixing up for a span of life of the deceased Saleem. It is also contended that the trial Court has erred in holding that apart from Rs. 100 salary that the deceased was earning as Chowkidar from Post and Telegraph department, he was also earning Rs. 5.75 ps. per day while working on daily wages basis in Telephone department for pulling the wires. This is therefore urged that the income should not have taken into account while considering the monthly income of the deceased.
(3.) The learned Counsel Shri R. D. Rastogi appearing for the respondent before starting the arguments brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 1 Hussain has expired recently. However, since the mother of the deceased, respondent No. 2 and wife of the deceased respondent No. 3 are already on record and therefore, it is not necessary to bring on record any more legal heirs for the purpose of deciding this appeal. It is contended by the learned Counsel that AW 1 Hussain, father of the deceased Saleem has stated that the deceased was working as Chowkidar during night in P and T department which is sufficiently proved from the documentary evidence on record. He was also working during day on daily wages basis in Telephone department and did work of pulling wire. This work was done by him at Dholpur and used to go from Bari to Dholpur in public transport like bus or tractor every day for doing this work. He has stated that he was earning around Rs. 200 per month for doing this work. It is also pointed out that AW 2 Jagan Nath, who was travelling along with the deceased in tractor when the accident took-place and was also working in Telephone Department on daily wages basis along with deceased Saleem has stated that Saleem was getting Rs. 200 per month for pulling wires and the same amount was received by this witness also for doing the similar job. He has further stated that each of them paid Rs. 2 to the driver of the tractor for travelling from Dholpur to Bari and they preferred to travel by tractor, as the bus charges were Rs. 2.50 ps. per head and the tractor driver accepted to take from them payment of Rs. 2 per head. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the trial Court has erred in relying on AW 3 Shamsudden Sub-postmaster in whose office the deceased was working as Chowkidar at night. This witness has stated that the deceased apart from getting Rs. 100 as Chowkidari charges earning Rs. 5.75 ps. per day for working in telephone department on daily wages basis for pulling wires. It is contended that AW 3 has no personal knowledge of the payment the deceased was receiving on account of his working in Telephone Department and he could be relied upon only regarding the monthly payment received by the deceased for the work as Chowkidar at night in postal department. It is, therefore, contended by the learned Counsel that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 340 per month and not Rs. 130 as counted by the learned Tribunal.;