KOKJE, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred by the claimant in an accident claim case. On 25. 12. 1986 Praveen Kumar, the deceased, was riding on Scooter. The respondent No. 1 driving a Motor Cycle belonging to Union of India hit him causing serious injuries to Praveen Kumar on the forehead and the head resulting in his death. Praveen Kumar was 24 years of age at the time of his death. He was a student in Engineering College prosecuting his studies for M. E. Degree. A claim petition was preferred by the Mother, Father, two Sisters and a Brother of the deceased claiming a total compensation of rupees 12 lacs 15 thousand before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jodhpur. The MACT awarded a total compensation of Rupees 1 lac 52 thousand only. Complaining of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was an Engineer and had bright future prospects of earning a decent income in his life. Assessing his average income at Rs. 1,500/-per month, according to the learned counsel, even in the year 1986 was ridiculous. The learned counsel also submitted that the assessment of compensation has been made mechanically without looking to the material on record. The learned counsel for the Union of India contested the appeal and submitted that the award can not be said to be inadequate or inappropriate.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. PW 1 Laloo Narain, father of the deceased, deposed that his son was very good at studies. He had passed B. E. examination in Honours and was prosecuting his studies for M. E. Degree and was in receipt of Rs. 1,000/-per month as scholarship. He also deposed that the deceased after passing his B. E. Examination was employed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the services of the State Government and served the State Government on a salary of Rs. 2,000/-per month till he got admission in M. E. course. He also exhibited a letter offering a service on salary of Rs. 3,000/-per month received by his son. He also stated that he had to spent Rs. 2,000/-for carrying the dead body to Jaipur and also spent Rs. 10,000/-for performing the last rites and obsequies of the deceased. He stated that Rs. 5,000/-was spent on repairing the Scooter which was damaged. As regards the longevity in the family he stated that his father died at the age of 77 and mother was living at the age of 70. He also deposed that the deceased was his eldest son and if he had not met with the accident he would have earned rupees 4 to 5 thousand per month and would have given at least half of that income to the witness. Nothing of consequence came out in the cross-examination. PW2 Ratan Singh Gehlot stated that he had offered a job of Rs. 3,000/-to Praveen Kumar. PW 3 Pawan Kumar was riding on the Pillion seat with the deceased at the time of the accident. He deposed about the circumstances in which the accident took place. He said nothing about income or prospects of earning of Praveen Kumar. On behalf of respondents, only respondent No. 1, the Driver of the vehicle, was examined who said nothing about the prospects of income of the deceased. On this evidence the Tribunal had assessed average income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/-per month. To my mind, the income has been assessed arbitrarily and not on sound principles. It is not even based on an informed guess or conjecture. It is true that the deceased was a student of 24 years of age and was prosecuting his studies on a scholarship of Rs. 1,000/-per month. In such cases prospects of future earnings only can be considered. A boy who was being paid Rs. 1,000/-per month as scholarship would have earned at least four times that amount on an average as salary when employed gainfully after completion of studies. It is ridiculous to hold that a person would be paid 2/3 of his prospective salary as scholarship. The amount of scholarship itself is an indication that starting salary of the deceased would have been between 3 to 4 thousand per month. Moreover this could have been the starting salary and on an average in his working life the deceased could have earned Rs. 5,000/-per month on the assessment made even in the year 1986. The Tribunal had held that out of the income of the deceased the parents could have got 2/3 as deceased would have spent on himself and his wife and children 1/3 of the amount. The dependency was therefore assessed at Rs. 500/-per month. This assessment is also arbitrary and not reasonable. The father of the deceased was only 45 years of age at that time. Praveen Kumar would have spent at least 50% of his income for the first 10 years on his parents and thereafter about 1/3 on them and 2/3 on himself, his wife and his children. The Tribunal has held that parents would have lived up to the age of 70 years and would have got the benefit of 1/3 of their son's income and therefore multiplier of 25 would be appropriate to apply. The learned counsel for the respondent had challenged this assessment and submitted that under the recent trend of Supreme Court Rulings maximum multiplier can be 18 only. On the over all assessment of the material on record I find that the average prospective income of the deceased could be taken to be Rs. 5,000/-per month. The average income for the first 10 years would have been Rs. 3,000/-per month totalling to Rs. 3,60,000/ -. Out of this he would have spent 50% in the first 10 years on his parents which comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. In the next 10 years the average income could have been Rs. 5,000/-per month totalling to Rs. 6,00,000/ -. By that time the parents would reach an age around 65 years. Out of this amount only 1/3 would have been spent on the parents as other 2/3 would have been spent on himself, wife and children by the deceased. Thus as amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-would have been spent by the deceased on his parents in the last 10 years. Thus the amount which would have been spent by the deceased on his parents up to their reaching at the age of 65 would be Rs. 2,00,000/-plus 1,80,000/-totalling to Rs. 3,80,000/ -. If the amount is paid in a lump sum the interest earned on that would be a total benefit to the parents. A sum of Rs. 80,000/-deserves to be deducted on account of the lump sum payment being ordered. Thus in the circumstances of the case a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-would be just and proper compensation payable to the parents of the deceased. As regards other claimants namely the brother and sisters of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly held that they were not entitled to maintain the claim in the presence of their parents. The decision on the claim on account of damage to Scooter and funeral expenses does not need any interference as the amount on those counts has been awarded or refused to be awarded on sound principles. In the result the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 1,52,000/-to Rs. 3,02,000/-which will be payable by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 jointly or severally. The amount of Rs. 15,000/-already paid u/s. 92-A will be deductible from this amount. Looking to the fact that the claimants are the parents of the deceased and not minors or such persons who cannot look after themselves, the direction to deposit the amount in fixed deposit with a Bank is therefore wholly unnecessary. The enhanced amount be paid by deposit in cash or account payee cheque with the MACT within two months from today. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of filing of the claim (25. 3. 1987 ).
(3.) THE appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award is modified accordingly. .;