MANTI DEVI Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 4.10.1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

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

(3.) Sh. P.N. Talwar, 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. 750/- 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. 3,300/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses although the deceased was supporting a large family at the time of accident and is survived by his widow and six children. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 16 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 17 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 24 yrs of age only. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he would have expanded his business and would have been earning much more in the near future. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates 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 also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 15% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium.