The court considered the amended law to protect the interests of the victims and their heirs, leading to an increased compensation amount.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Skeletal facts of this case are that the deceased was 32 years old and he left behind his wife, two minor sons, two minor daughters and parents. The deceased was drawing a total salary of Rs. 742/- per month as a Editor Journalist. The learned Tribunal determined the dependency of wife and children at Rs. 300/- and that of parents at Rs. 200/- per month. Applying a multiplier of 14, Rs. 50,400/- were awarded as compensation to the wife and children and Rs. 6000/- to the mother (as father died during the pendency of the case). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deducted from this amount of compensation on the ground that this amount was paid by the State Government as ex gratia. Thus, the claimants i.e wife and children were awarded only Rs. 41,000/-. The claimants filed FAO No. 497 of 1982 in this Court. The claimants learned counsel argued that multiplier of 16 should have been applied and ex gratia amount granted to these claimant-appellants should not have been deducted. Both the prayers were not opposed by the respondents learned counsel. Hence the learned Single Judge awarded Rs. 96,000/- to the claimants and as per the apportionments made Rs. 80,000/- were to be received by the wife and children and Rs. 16,000/- by the mother. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was also awarded to the claimants.

2. The claimant-appellants learned counsel contended that considering the age of the deceased and that of the claimants; a multiplier of 20 should have been adopted. He further submitted that as the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 742 and his dependents were wife, parents and four minor children, the dependency should not have been determined at Rs. 500/-, deducting Rs. 242/- for the personal expenses of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, even as per the unit system only l/6th of the income of the deceased should have been deducted for his personal expenses as he was to support a large family of four minor children, parents and wife. He further argued that no compensation has been awarded under the heads loss of consortium and loss of estate.

3. The respondents learned counsel strenuously argued that multiplier of 16 is properly applied in this case as the age of the deceased was 32 years, but he did not strongly oppose the other submissions made by the claimant-appellants learned counsel.

4. The learned Single Judge has applied a multiplier of 16. By Amendment Act of 54 of 1994, which came into force with effect from November 14, 1994, the Second Schedule is inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per this Second Schedule, since the age of the deceased was 32 years a multiplier of 17 would be appropriate to be adopted. We are taking this view by taking into consideration the amended law which is now introduced by the Parliament in order to protect the interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victim died. Since this is a benevolent legislation, in our considered view, the benefit of the aforesaid amendment should be given to the claimants.

5. So far as the dependency is concerned, the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 742/-. The dependents are four minor children, wife and mother, as father died during the pendency of the case. Thus, the family has five units and their dependency should have been determined at Rs. 594/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 17, in our considered view, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,21,176/- (594 x 12 x 17) rounded off to Rs. 1,21,200/- from the respondents. In our considered view, the claimant-appellant wife is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000 under the head loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- under the head loss of estate. Thus, the claimant-appellants are entitled to get Rs. 1,28,700/-. They are also held entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Out of this compensation, Rs.