ASHA GUPTA Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In an unfortunate accident which took place on 21st October, 1995 Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta (deceased) while travelling by his car No. DL-3CD-2021 from Karnal towards Delhi via G. T. Karnal Road along with two other persons, had reached near Babbarpur, District Panipat, Haryana, then his car was hit by truck bearing No. RJ- 14G-2841 coming from the opposite side. All the occupants of the said car sustained injuries. Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta died on his way to the hospital and was declared brought dead at the General Hospital. The claimants in this case, the widow-Smt. Asha Gupta, and the two sons Master Rahul Gupta and Master Rohit Gupta filed the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal') took the income of the deceased at the basic minimum wages for a semiskilled worker at Rs. 1,711/- per month and calculated the compensation. The age of the deceased was accepted as 35 years. One-third was deducted out of the average monthly income towards his personal expenses. 14 years multiplier was applied and a sum of Rs. 1,91,688/- was awarded towards compensation, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium with interest @ of 9% p.a. On the awarded amount from the filing of the petition till realization.

(3.) The claimants feeling aggrieved have filed this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the virtually unchallenged evidence on record indicating that he was maintaining two cars, paying Rs. 1,400/- as rent for a shop, Rs. 300/- towards school fee of each of the two children. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal should not have rejected the evidence on record. The learned Tribunal also did not apply appropriate multiplier in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 35 years and according to the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 17years multiplier should have been applied. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that only 9% interest has been awarded.