( 1 ) OM Parkash, whose widow and daughter have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation, died on 5th February, 1966, near Kela Godown, Qutab Road, in a road accident caused by truck No. MPH 6094. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,580. 00 towards compensation payable by respondent No. 3, the insurance company.

( 2 ) THE cross-objection is filed by respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck and respondent No. 3, the insurance company. They have filed a joint written statement, challenging the award on merits and also raising a plea of contributory negligence. It is strange that a common written statement is being filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as by the insurance company. This is because the insurance company is not entitled to raise any plea on merits and has to honour the award passed on merits against the owner under section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of the hearing the counsel appearing for the said respondent could not justify the pleas raised in the cross-objections. Counsel was fair enough not to press them. Therefore, the cross-objections filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are rejected.

( 3 ) OM Parkash was 29 years old at the rime of accident. He was running a shop selling shoes and chappals. Public witness s 1 and 2 who have their shops adjacent to the shop of the deceased have stated in their evidence that the deceased was earning about Rs. 500. 00 to Rs. 600. 00 per month. It is also stated in the claim petition that he was paying income-tax. The deceased was survived by a widow and daughter as well as mother and father. It appears that the mother and father expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 300. 00. P. m. and his contribution to the family at Rs. 75. 00 per month. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 32 and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,580. 00.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal was wrong in taking multiplier of 32. The submission is that in the contemporary decisions in early 70 s, the multiplier was normally assumed to be near about 15. There is some merit in this submission although it is not correct that the multiplier was nevermore than 15. Considering all the facts of this case I find the multiplier of 20 to be reasonable one in the present case.

( 5 ) I, however, find that the Tribunal has wrongly assumed that the deceased was earning only Rs. 300. 00 and his contribution to family was Rs. 75. 00. The evidence of Public witness s 1 and 2 was rejected by the Tribunal on an untenable ground of giving margin to exaggeration . The Tribunal had not referred to any contradiction or admission in the cross-examination of these two witnesses. The Tribunal therefore was not justified in assuming that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 300. 00. Based on the evidence of Public Witness 1 and Public witness 2, it can safely be assumed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 500. 00 per month. The finding of the Tribunal in regard to the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family also suffers from some serious infirmity and queer logic. The Tribunal found that Public witness 2 had stated in the cross- examination that after the death of Om Parkash, the income from the shop became half. On that basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that income would be about 150 rupees after his death and the contribution to the family would be Rs. 75. 00. The Tribunal s finding on this score is wrong. I have already held that income of the deceased was Rs. 500. 00 per month. If his personal expenses are taken to be Rs. 100. 00, I hold that he was contributing Rs. 400. 00 towards his family consisting of his wife, daughter, his mother and father. Applying the multiplier of 20 the claimants should be entitled to Rs. 96,000. 00 as compensation. They will also be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from 1st April, 1970 till payment. The insurance company would, of course, be