K.S. Chaudhari, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 4/1/2000 passed by Judge, M.A.C.T., Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim No. 1006 of 1998 (Vandana Bansal v. Krishan Gopal) by which the Tribunal awarded claim of Rs. 6,42,000 against which this appeal has been preferred.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Narender Bansal, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 and son of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was travelling in car No. RJ 14-3C 186 which was driven by respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently. The respondent No. 4 was the registered owner of the said car and it was insured by the respondent No. 6, which collided with truck No. DL IG-A 1436 on 17.7.1998 which was driven by respondent No. 2 negligently. Narender Bansal died in the accident. Respondent No. 1 is the registered owner of the truck and it was insured by respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 filed reply and denied their liability and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not appear. After recording evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,42,000 against the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against which, this appeal has been filed. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 instead of multiplier of 18 and has not awarded interest, hence, the appeal may be accepted and multiplier of 18 along with interest may be awarded, whereas learned counsel for respondents submitted that Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act does not apply in this case and it is only a guideline and further submitted that as per Schedule only Rs. 9,500 could have been allowed in the form of general damages in case of death whereas Rs. 42,000 have been awarded, hence, multiplier of 18 need not be applied and further submitted that amount has already been disbursed within the stipulated period, hence, no question of granting interest arises and appeal may be dismissed. In the post-mortem report Exh. 7, age of deceased Narender Bansal has been shown as 26 years. Appellants have also proved the age of deceased by producing Secondary School Examination Certificate in which his date of birth is shown as 21.7.1972. Thus, it becomes clear that at the time of death Narender Bansal was 26 years old. This fact has not been disputed by respondents. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the age of deceased Narender Bansal was 26 years at the time of accident.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in ascertaining Rs. 60,000 per annum income of the deceased. This argument is devoid of force in the light of income tax returns submitted by deceased and proved the appellants. The return Exh. 16 for the assessment year 1996-97 has been submitted in April 1997 in which income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 49,540 and income tax return Exh. 17 for the assessment year 1997-98 has been submitted by the deceased on 13.1.1998 in which the deceased has shown his income as Rs. 58,817. Normally the assessee suppresses his income in the income tax return whereas the deceased has shown his in- come to be Rs. 58,817 for the assessment year 1997-98. In such circumstances it can very well be presumed that his income was Rs. 60,000 per annum at the time of his death. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 60,000 per annum. As per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 18 should have been applied whereas the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Apex Court has held in Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2002 ACJ 1166 (SC), that where no reason has been given by Tribunal for fixing lower multiplier, appropriate multiplier provided in the Second Schedule should be adopted as a guideline and the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case applied multiplier of 17 instead of 16 at the age of 32 years. In such circumstances, in the case in hand the age of deceased Narender Bansal was 26 years hence multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 15. If multiplier of 18 is applied, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 40,000 x 18 = Rs. 7,20,000. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 42,000 on account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to the spouse, mother and children and funeral expenses whereas per Schedule only Rs. 9,500 could have been awarded as loss of consortium, etc. Thus it becomes clear that as per the Schedule Rs. 7,20,000 + Rs. 9,500 = Rs. 7,29,500 should have been awarded as compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,42,000. Perusal of the award reveals that the liability of interest has been fastened on the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 only in case awarded amount is not paid within 45 days. Normally 12 per cent interest should have been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing claim application till the date of realization. In Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), Apex Court allowed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim till the date of realization. ;