MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE Appellants are aggrieved by an Award dated 13th July 1987 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Suit No. 27 of 1981. According to the Appellants, the compensation awarded on the death of O. P. Kapoor was inadequate.

( 2 ) THE deceased was working as an Operations Assistant with Indian Airlines and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1506. 07 per month. He was unfortunately involved in an accident on 16th September 1980 and succumbed to his injuries. The accident is said to have taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of a car by Respondent No. 1. The car was insured with Respondent No. 3. The Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased and they had filed a claim for compensation before the learned MACT.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT framed the following issues: --

1. WHETHER the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of car No. PUM-8129 on the part of Respondent No. 1?

2. WHETHER the respondents are not liable to pay compensation for the preliminary objections taken in their written statements?

3. WHETHER the petitioners are the legal representative of the deceased and are entitled to maintain the claim petition?

4. TO what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?

( 4 ) IN respect of Issue No. 1, the learned MACT answered in the affirmative and held that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by Respondent No. 1. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents. As regards Issue No. 3, it was held that the Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased and could maintain the claim petition.

( 5 ) IN respect of the 4th Issue, the learned MACT found that as per the office record the salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,594. 36 per month. He was found to be about 45 years of age. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased used to provide a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 per month for household expenses. His widow affirmed this during her cross-examination. On this basis, the learned MACT took his contribution for household expenses to be Rs. 900. 00 per month. The learned MACT held that he would have worked up to the age of 58 years and, therefore, adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,40,000. 00 as compensation on account of his death. The learned MACT directed that the Appellants be paid interest at 12% per annum on this amount from the date of the order till realization of the amount. The liability to make the payment was fixed on the insurance company (Respondent No. 3 ). The learned MACT did not award any amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium or loss of estate.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the Appellants has complained that the future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration by the learned MACT while awarding compensation. It has also been contended that the dependency of Rs. 900. 00 per month is too low. It was submitted that the gross monthly salary of the deceased should have been taken to be Rs. 3200. 00 per month instead of Rs. 1600. 00. It was submitted that had the correct salary been taken, on the basis of future prospects, the dependency would have been much higher. As regards the multiplier, it was submitted that in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) the appropriate multiplier should have been 15 and not 13. As regards the interest awarded by the learned MACT, it was submitted that 12% per annum should have been awarded from the date of the claim petition and not from the date of the order. Finally, it was submitted that the conventional amount towards loss of consortium and loss of estate was erroneously not awarded in favour of the Appellants.

( 7 ) WITH respect to the multiplier to be adopted, it is now well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court that the Second Schedule to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document