CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1984 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 215 of 1982. Sushil Kumar Jain for the Appellants. Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Nath, (for M/s Rajinder Narain Co. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. Padmakar More was going on a bicycle on September 9, 1978 when he was knocked down by a Bus owned by the respondentcorporation. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Narayan, father of Padmakar, Prerna his widow and Shweta a minor daughter moved a petition before the First Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Indore claiming Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation. The tribunal by its award dated April 27, 1982 allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of Rs. 26,000 with interest at 6% from the date of the application. The tribunal further directed the said amount to be apportioned as Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 4,000 amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively. The tribunal further directed that the share of the minor daughter be deposited in the State Bank of India, Indore in reinvestment scheme, which shall be payable to her on attaining majority. The tribunal based its findings on the following reasoning :
"In view of foregoing discussion my finding is
that the accident took place due to negligent
driving of the motor bus by the N.A. No.2 and
as a result of the said accident Padmakar
sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them
on the spot. Issue No.3- Date of birth of
Padmakar as per record of the Hukum Chand
Mills is 16th June, 1952. He was thus 26
years of age on the date of the accident.
According to pay sheet of the Hukum Chand
Mills for August, 1978 Padmakar was given Rs.
411.70 paise as gross salary excluding the
deduction on account of advances and Rs. 27 on
account of canteen and insurance. After
deduction of the amount of canteen and
insurance the net amount of salary comes
to Rs. 384.70 paise. It appears that Padmakar
was a drunkard. Naturally he might be
spending more amount on himself than on his
family. The dependency may be taken Rs. 150
per month. Padmakar was young man of 26
years. 17 years multiplier would be just and
proper in this case. Thus the gross
compensation comes to Rs. 30,600. Out of this
15% are deducted on account of lumpsum payment
and uncertainties of life. Thus the net
compensation comes to Rs. 26,000. 1 have not
taken into consideration the future increment
of Padmakar and therefore, the deduction on
account of lumpsum payment and uncertainties
of life should have been less than 15%.
However, I have deducted 15% keeping in view
that the widow of Padmakar is young lady of
about 21 years and there is more chance of her
remarriage. Out of Rs. 26,000, Rs. 4000 are
apportioned to the share of old father Narayan
of Padmakar. Rs. 10,000 to the share of minor
daughter of Padmakar and Rs. 12,000 to the
share of widow of Padmakar." The claimants went in appeal against the award of the tribunal. The Corporation also filed an appeal against the judgment of the tribunal. By a common judgment dated October 9, 1984 the High Court dismissed both the appeals. The High Court, however, enhanced the interest awarded to the claimants from 6% to 9%. This appeal is by the widow and the minor daughter for enhancement of compensation. Narayan, father of the deceased has also been impleaded as proforma respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that decreased Padmakar was 26 years of age on the date of the accident. It is also not disputed that after deductions his pay packet used to be Rs. 384.70. There was no evidence before the tribunal to show that the deceased Padmakar was addicted to drinking. The tribunal fell into patent error in fixing the dependency of the claimants on the deceased Padmakar to the extent of Rs. 150 per month on the ground that Padmakar was a drunkard and as such was spending more amount on himself than on his family. The High Court on this aspect held as under :
"There is no evidence to indicate that the
deceased was a drunkard or that even at the
time of the accident he was in a drunken state
and that it is on that account that of his own
he. fell down on the ground on the road and
thus sustained the injuries which resulted in
his death.’ We are of the view that from the evidence on the record it can safely be concluded that the deceased was spending Rs. 300 per month on his family and running the house-hold. We set aside the finding of the trial court as upheld by the High Court on this issue. We are further of the view that the tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of seventeen in this case. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death. The cause-title of the special leave petition shows that Narayan, the father of the deceased was aged about 70 years in 1985 when the special leave petition was filed. Longevity in the family can, therefore, be assumed. The tribunal did not give any allowance for the future increments and promotional chances of Padmakar. No compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper to allow 24 years multiplier. We, therefore, award Rs. 86,000 as compensation to the three claimants. They shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of application before the tribunal. Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about 15 years of the accident, there is no question of making any deductions on any score. We further direct that the sum of Rs. 86,000 shall be apportioned by paying Rs. 40,000 to the minor daughter Shweta, Rs. 30,000 to Prerna, widow of the deceased and Rs. 16,000 to Narayan the father of the deceased. We further direct that the share of the minor daughter Shweta be deposited in the bank as per the directions of the tribunal. After deducting the amount, if any, already paid to any of the claimants the balance amount with interest shall be paid by the respondent-corporation to the claimants within two months from today. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify as Rs. 5000 to be paid by the Corporation to Prerna, widow of the deceased. The appeal is allowed to the above extend. G.N. Appeal allowed.