JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble H.S. Bhalla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants for modification of the award with the prayer that just compensation has not been awarded and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

2. The lights of the house of the appellants were switched off when the deceased Subrat Kumar Garnaik met with an accident near Solia Bazaar and received fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident involving vehicle No. OSJ-727 driven by the driver of the said vehicle and owned by respondent No. 1. The claimant-appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Subrat Kumar Garnaik in a motor vehicular accident. The petition was contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing written statement and the learned Claims Tribunal after framing of issues and assessment of the evidence led by both the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,69,000/- as compensation and also imposed cost of Rs. 500/- so far as the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 is concerned, as he was set ex parte. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants only on the question of compensation that is to be granted to the claimant-appellants and have gone through the records.

3. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 15 applied was extremely low. He has urged that Subrat Kumar Garnaik, deceased was only 30 years of age at the time of his death and was working as a Contractor earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. To my mind, there has been a tendency as of low, to adopt a higher multiplier because of the increased life expectancy in this country. Moreover the payment of compensation should be reasonable which may be sufficient keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the case but at the same time, it should not be lavishly granted as the same causes burden on the society indirectly. The just compensation of the Tribunal should be fair, moderate and awardable in the proved circumstances of the case.

4. Law is well settled that while determining amount of compensation in cases of accidental deaths some guess work, hypothetical consideration and sympathy "are also to be taken into consideration. The compensation to be so determined has to be a "just compensation". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the expression "just" denotes equability, fairness and reasonableness. The relevant extracts of para 4 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. Muniam Babu and others, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 134 : 1999 (3) T.A.C. 35, is reproduced as under:

He has claimed his income to be Rs. 2,000 per month. The appellant, a young man cannot be disputed to be contributing and augmenting the income of his father. Some guess work has to be applied while assessing the loss. This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., SCC p. 556 : 1995 (1) T.A.C 557, para 9 :

9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include : (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person co