( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against an award granted by the Tribunal on 1st December, 1979 for a sum of Rs. 65,510. 00 with costs of the proceedings. The appellant Nos. 1 arid 2 are the widow and daughter while appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the lather and mother respectively of the deceased Thomas Mathew. By this appeal the appellants pray for the enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. 00 (Rupees twenty lakhs ).

( 2 ) THE deceased Thomas Mathe,w was going on his Scooter No. DHW-2222 on 22nd February, 1974 from Ring Road towards S. N. Depot side on M-Avenue Road on the correct side of the road at about 10. 30 A. M. A D. T. C. bus bearing No. DLP-1072 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite direction, i. e. , from S. N Depot side, at a very fast speed and dashed against the scooter of the deceased by coming to the right side of the road. He fell down from the scooter, received injuries and died on the spot,

( 3 ) I have heard Shri Yogesh Malhotra, counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased has not been correctly calculated by the Tribunal. For that purpose he drew my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal itself. In para No. 16 of the judgment on page 7 the Tribunal has held on the basis of the statement of RW-1 Mohd. Hussain Section Officer, Office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi, were the accused was employed as Deputy Controller General and getting a gross sale of Rs. 1,326. 50 per month. It was considered to be an authentic proof of the income of the deceased. However, while calculating the monthly dependency of the family of the deceased the learned Tribunal seems to have fallen into an error. The appellant No. 1 as Public Witness -3 stated that the deceased was contributing Rs. 900. 00 per month to meet the household expenses. The Tribunal gave allowance roughly of 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses and the rest was deemed to be contributed to the family but while calculating the dependency the Tribunal took the income of deceased at Rs. 900. 00 per month which was actually deposed to be contribution of the deceased towards the family. The gross income of the deceased as deposed by RW-1 was Rs. 1,326. 50 and, therefore, taking all the personal expenses of the deceased into consideration the monthly dependency should not have been less than Rs. 800. 00 per month. Therefore, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 9,600. 00 (Rupees nine thousand six hundred) and not Rs. 7,200. 00 (Rupees seven thousand two hundred) as held by the Tribunal.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also made a grievance that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the further promotions which would have been earned by the deceased during the normal course of his employment or even the normal increment to be earned by the deceased through out his carreer. However, no evidence in this respect has been pointed out from the record which could have shown as to what further promotions or what normal increments could have been ended by the deceased.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then drew my attention to the tact that in this case only a multiplier of 20 was adopted by the Tribunal In fact, the age of the deceased was only about 30 years at the time of the accident According to the learned counsel normal expectancy of life was also found by the Tribunal between 65 to 70 years of age. Therefore, the multiplier of atleast 35 should have been adopted. However, I am of the opinion that the deceased was in Government service and, therefore, he would have retired from the government service at the age of 58 years. Therefore, not more than a multiplier of 28 could have been adopted in this case because the deceased met with this unfortunate fatal accident at the age of 30.

( 7 ) MULTIP