The principles of estimating gross income and loss of dependency as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) were applied to determine the compensation.

1. - Heard.

2. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident at the age of 35 years. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,67,000.

3. The learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of the accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age should be 16.

4. The learned Tribunal has assessed the gross income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs. 2,100 per month. The learned Tribunal has mentioned in its award that the wife of the deceased has testified that her husband used to earn Rs. 80 per day. According to the learned Tribunal, the income of the deceased at the time of the accident, has been pleaded as Rs. 2,000 per month in the claim petition. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has estimated the gross income of the deceased at the time of the accident, as Rs. 2,100 per month, having regard to the future prospects and increase in the earning. It seems that the learned Tribunal has assessed the existing gross income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000 per month, as pleaded in the claim petition, against the deposition of the wife of the deceased that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,400 per month, at the rate of Rs. 80 per day. The Tribunal seems to have added Rs. 100 to the existing income of Rs. 2,000 per month of the deceased, on account of future advancement and increase in the earning of the deceased, and consequently, the learned Tribunal has estimated the gross income of the deceased as Rs. 2,100 per month.

5. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while assessing the value of dependency, a higher gross income should be estimated having regard to the future advancement and increase in the earnings of the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court has estimated the gross income of the deceased by doubling the existing gross income of the deceased at the time of the accident.

6. In the present case in hand, the wife of the deceased has testified that the existing income of the deceased at the time of the accident, was Rs. 80 per day, while, in the claim petition, the income of the deceased has been pleaded to be Rs. 2,000 per month. There is no evidence in rebuttal on record. Therefore, it is appropriate to estimate the existing income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs. 2,000 per month. Following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the gross income of the deceased should be estimated by adding fifty per cent of the existing income of the deceased, to the existing income of the deceased and thus, the gross income of the deceased should be estimated in this case as Rs. 3,000 per month. Deducting one-third therefrom on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,000 per month. With reference to multiplier 16, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000. To this, a sum of Rs. 15,000 should be added for the loss of consortium and love to the wife of the deceased; and Rs. 30,000 as compensation for the loss of affection and care to the five children and mother of the deceased. Thus, the total amount of compensation in this case comes to Rs. 4,29,000. The award of the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced to this extent.

7. The learned Tribunal has awarded a penal interest in this case. It has directed that the interest at the rate of 12 per cent would be payable, but that if the award amount is not paid within one month, the rate of interest would be 15 per cent. In my opinion, the award of enhanced interest by way of penalty is not appropriate and permissible. Therefore, the interest pay