The court applied the principles of assessing loss of dependency based on the deceased's monthly income, future prospects, and minimum wages, and considered contributory negligence to enhance the compensation awarded.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS, parents of the deceased Ranjan Kumar, who died in an accident on 3. 5. 1993 seek enhancement of compensation awarded.

( 2 ) THE award is dated 15. 5. 2003. Loss of dependency to the appellants has been worked out as under:

" (15) According to Lekh Raj, PW 1, father of the deceased, deceased Ranjan kumar was working as conductor and used to give Rs. 1,000 per month for household expenses and at the time of accident was unmarried and was aged about 25 years. It has also been stated by pw 1 that if Ranjan Kumar would not have died, he would have been earning a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased Ranjan kumar and also his antecedents and the fact that he had passed Senior School certificate Examination in 1988 as per photocopy, Exh. PW 1/13 and also the background of the parents of the deceased and the age of the petitioners and also the future prospects, a compensation amount of Rs. 1,60,000 would be just and reasonable, which is being awarded as compensation in this case and this issue is decided accordingly. "

( 3 ) HARDLY any reasons are surfacing for me to appreciate as to what process of reasoning has been adopted by the Tribunal to arrive at the compensation amount of rs. 1,60,000.

( 4 ) MR. O. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants, has conceded that there was contributory negligence and on account thereof, learned Tribunal was justified in passing another order of even date reducing the compensation payable to Rs. 1,35,000.

( 5 ) THE only issue which needs determination, is whether the findings as per para 15 of the award are reasonable.

( 6 ) THE accident in question took place on 3. 5. 1993. Deceased was aged 25 years.

( 7 ) IN my view, Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a lump sum compensation of rs. 1,60,000 to the appellants.

( 8 ) MY first task is to determine monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident. As there is no satisfactory evidence on the record showing the monthly income of the deceased, I take help of the minimum wages as notified by the Central government under the Minimum Wages act, 1948.

( 9 ) EXH. PW 1/13 shows that deceased had passed the Senior School Certificate examination in the year 1988. Minimum wages to matriculates as on February 1993 notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is Rs. 1,342 per month. Thus, I take the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his accident as Rs. 1,342.

( 10 ) I have before me the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages act, 1948, which show that pertaining to matriculates, minimum wages have risen from Rs. 1,342 per month as on 1. 2. 1993 to Rs. 3,231 per month as on 1. 2. 2003. Between 1. 2. 1993 and 1. 2. 2003, the percentage increase is nearly 150 per cent.

( 11 ) MINIMUM wages are notified keeping into account the inflationary trends and cost indices. These are the minimum wages which law presumes would be required for a person to sustain himself at the minimum level of subsistence.

( 12 ) THE deceased had over 35 years of gainful employment assuming he would have worked till the age of 60 years.

( 13 ) IN my opinion, the future prospects have to be considered and granted.

( 14 ) TAKING Rs. 1,342 as the basis and doubling the same and taking the mean of the two, the average income of the deceased works out to Rs. 2,013 per month.

( 15 ) DEDUCTING 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency to appellants is assessed as Rs. 1,342 per month.

( 16 ) KEEPING in view Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the fact that the deceased was unmarried, I consider multiplier of 17 as fair and reasonable. Accordingly, Rs. 2,73,768 would be the compensation to the appellants.

( 17 ) I further award a conventional sum of Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium to the parents as also Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation works out to Rs. 2,90,768.

( 18 ) I note that the Claims Tribunal had deducted 15 pe