The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for fatal road accidents, including the factors to consider such as the deceased's income and the appropriate multiplier.

V. B. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 11th December, 1996 passed in suit No. 614/1992 by Sh. Rakesh kapur, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, wherein a sum of rs. 2,65,200/- was awarded to the appellants on account of death of Manjeet Singh in a road accident.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 6th October, 1992 at about 9. 00 a. m. deceased Manjeet Singh was driving two wheeler scooter No. DDM-335 and when he reached the round about at Rama Road, Patel Road, a DTC bus No. DHP-3915 plying at route No. 820, came from behind at a very fast speed. This bus first of all hit a three wheeler scooter which over-turned and thereafter the said bus hit the scooter of the deceased. The scooter of the deceased was completely crushed and deceased died at the spot.

( 3 ) THE factum of accident and the fact that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner are not in dispute. The only question raised in the present appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded is much less than the reasonable.

( 4 ) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at rs. 2,500/-, in fact the deceased was earning much more than this amount and as such monthly income of deceased would not have been less than Rs. 4,000/ -. The learned Tribunal ignored the income tax return Ex. PW-3/e which was filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The price index should ought to have been taken consideration by the learned Tribunal and the 1/3rd deduction is on the higher side. The multiplier applied in this case was of 13 years whereas, as per second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the multiplier ought to have been of 17 years. Learned counsel in support of his contention has cited the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996), 3 SCC 179, in which it has been observed that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased was more than 33 years at the time of the accident, which is clear from the school leaving certificate which is Ex. PW-3/g. The learned Tribunal rightly rejected the income tax return Ex. PW-3/e, since the same was filed much after the death of the deceased. As per income tax return ex. PW-3/d, filed on 11th June, 1992, i. e. four months prior to death of the deceased, which is an authenticated document the learned Tribunal rightly considered it. According to this document, the annual income of deceased was rs. 30,490/- and, thus, his monthly income was assessed at Rs. 2,500/-

( 6 ) AS per statement of wife of the deceased who has appeared in the witness box of the PW-3, the deceased was carrying the business along with his brother. In cross-examination, PW-3 admits that in the shop run by her husband, his brother Gurcharan was also with him. Thus, from this shop, income accrued to deceased as well as to his brother and as such there was sharing of the income.

( 7 ) THE multiplier of 13 years in this case has been adopted by the learned tribunal in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court and as per decision in the case of UP Road Transport Corporation and Ors vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362, the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 suffers from several defects and Courts and Tribunals cannot go by the ready reckoner. This schedule can only be used as a guide and the selection of multiplier cannot be solely dependent age of the deceased. Hence, there is no force in this appeal and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and the trial court order does not call for any interference.

( 8 ) AS per averments made in the petition, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 30 years. How