PREM CHANDRA KANU Vs. ADITY PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. In a motor accident on 26.7.1996, one Santosh Kumar, aged about 22 years, who was a student, while coming on a Scooter, was dashed by Dumper (BR -14G - 2115) and died. His parents filed Title (M.V.) Claim Case No. 1 of 1997, for a compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was established that accident took place on account of rash and negligent drive of the Dumper in question. It was claimed that besides studying in College, the deceased was also doing private tuition and was earning about Rs. 2,000/ - per month and was contributing half of it to the family. Tribunal thereafter calculated annual dependency at Rs. 12,000/ -(1000 X 12). His father, in his deposition as witness in the claim case, admitted himself to be 54 years old. The tribunal, therefore, applied 8 multiplier and calculated Rs. 96,000/ -plus Rs. 4,000/ - for loss of estate, i.e. total compensation of Rs. l,00,000/ - (one lac) to be paid tot he claimants. It was also taken into consideration that in case the said amount is kept in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank, at a rate of interest, appropriate to a stable economy, it would yield multiplicant, by way of annual interest. In ascertaining the appropriate multiplier the Tribunal also took into consideration that ultimately capital sum of Rs. l.00,000/ - should also be consumed up, over the period, for which dependency was expected to last. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. This appeal is dismissed.