HARBANS KAUR Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 5/12/1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,880/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

(3.) Sh. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 660/- per month whereas after looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and the same should have been 1/5th as the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of accident survived by his widow, three sons, one daughter and aged father. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 14 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 16 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 40 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also urged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rate of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and no compensation has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. The counsel has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions: