Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Haryana Rajya Parivahan Nigam, against the Award dated 21.9.2004 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khetdi, in MACT Case No. 14/1998 whereby claim petition of the claimants was allowed and they have been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,46,540/- due to death of Leeladhar in road accident alleged to be occurred on 18.7.1997 when he was coming in Bus No. HR 46-227 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. Mr. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the Haryana Roadways, stated that a criminal case was got registered on the statement of the conductor of the bus and after due enquiry, the police did not file challan against the driver of the bus. It was submitted by the counsel that in these circumstances there was no rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the bus in question. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that there is no evidence on the file except the post mortem report of the deceased Liladhar. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and without the evidence it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. The MACT has erred in applying the multiplier of 18 in this case. As per the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was shown 35 years and as such the very much excessive multiplier was applied. The MACT also erred in assessing the monthly income. The deceased climbed over the roof of the bus and the driver requested him to come in the bus but he did not come and while overtaking the tractor the driver applied emergency breaks but during this process deceased fell down from the bus and died.

4. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the claimants argued that the MACT has rightly awarded the amount after considering the evidence of income and age of the deceased, the appeal filed by the Haryana Roadways deserves to be dismissed. The multiplier was rightly applied as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent-claimants. There is no dispute about the accident that it took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The only point to be considered in the instant matter is about the income and age of the deceased. The deceased was shown aged 27 years as per the claim application and in the post mortem report his age was shown to be 35 years. The MACT on the basis of this estimated the age of the deceased to be 30 years and on account of this as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier of 18 was applied. This multiplier cannot be said to be unjust for the persons in the age group of 25-30 as per Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse so far applying multiplier of 18 and estimating the age of the deceased to be 30 years. In relation to income the MACT estimated the minimum wages Rs. 1800/- per month and out of this amount Rs. 1200/- were estimated to be incurred by the deceased on his family. In this manner in a year he must have incurred Rs. 14,400 per year on his family. If this amount is multiplied to 18 it comes to Rs. 2,59,000/-. For the future loss the MACT estimated 20 per cent amount and in this manner a sum of Rs. 51,840 was estimated. for loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- were awarded to the wife of the deceased. Since he was having two sons and one daughter and for love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were assessed for all the three children. The police cremated the deceased and hence no amount was awarded in this head. For fifteen days the wife of the deceased and his other family members incurred by way of transportation atleast Rs. 10,000/- and hence the MACT awarded Rs. 10,000/- for transportation expenses. On account of loss of prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document