KOKJE, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. H. R. Panwar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur learned counsel for the Respondent.
(2.) THE appellants Kiran Kanwar and ors. are the successors of late Surya Bhan Singh who met with an accidental death in an accident involving a motor vehicle belonging to the Union of India. THE appellants lodged a claim with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the Union of India, the owner of the vehicle, and its driver Sugnilal Yadav. THE claim was rejected by the MACT holding that negligence of the driver of the respondents's vehicle was not proved. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant claimants have filed this appeal. A perusal of the record shows that Kiran Kanwar, widow of late Suryabhan Singh examined herself and also examined Digvijay Singh. PW/2 who had seen the accident as eye witness No one was examined on behalf of the respondents. Digvijay Singh deposed that he had witnessed the accident in which Suryabhan Singh, who was riding a moped, was hit by the truck. He deposed that Suryabhan Singh was on his left side and the truck hit him coming on the wrong side at the extreme of the road. He also stated that the moped was entangled with the radiator of the truck and was dragged with the truck for a considerable distance. There is in fact nothing on record to controvert the statement of Digvijay Singh. The driver of the truck, who was also a party to the proceedings, was not examined. He was the best evidence available to the respondents to support their case if their case was true. Despite this the MACT found that Digvijay Singh's statement was not acceptable and there was nothing to prove negligence of respondent No. 2 in the case. The MACT has given its findings on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Despite specific evidence of Digvijay Singh on record, the learned Presiding Officer of the MACT held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck. It is clearly a perverse finding which has to be set aside. It is, hereby, set aside. On the question of quantum of compensation the widow of the deceased has clearly stated that her husband was serving with the RSRTC as a Booking Clerk and was receiving Rs. 1150/-as salary. She also stated that her husband was of 30-31 years of age. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondents. Her statement, therefore, will have to be accepted and the MACT has, in fact, relied upon it while deciding issue No. 2 relating to quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a multiplier of 26 has been applied which should not have been done and under the decisions of the Supreme Court maximum multiplier of 18 could have been given. While consider-ing the over all situation, compensation of Rs. 2,49,600/-does appear to be adequate and appropriate. It is not exorbitant. It is true that the damages have been calculated on the basis of 26 years of balance service left but it can be seen that the average salary of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 1150/-which he was getting at the time of his death. No allowance has been given for the increase in salary. In the 26 years' service life, average could easily be about Rs. 3,000/ -. Moreover no amount has been awarded for loss of company, love and affection. Thus, I find that an over all assessment of Rs. 2,49,600/-was a just compensation. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The amount of Rs. 2,49,600/-is awarded as compensation as determined by the M. A. C. T. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. The amount be deposited within a period of three months from today. . ;