The court re-evaluated the dependency and compensation awarded by the Single Judge, considering the deceased's income and the minor's dependency, and determined the compensation amount accordingly.

N.C.Jain, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of LPA Nos. 229 and 230 both the 1987 as they have arisen out of common judgment given by the learned Single Judge.

2. The appellant herein is a girl who was aged 10 months only at the time of accident, in which she lost her mother and father. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 52,800/- on account of the death of the father of the appellant. No compensation was granted on account of the death of the mother by the Tribunal.

3. The appellant filed two appeals (FAO Nos. 467 and 468 of 1981). Both the appeals have been decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated August 24, 1985. The learned Single Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the death of the mother and Rs. 2 lacs for the death of the father. The learned Single Judge . held that the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant deserved to be assessed at Rs. 1000/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16 the compensation was worked out at Rs. 1,92,000/-. The figure was rounded off to Rs. 2 lacs by the learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. At the very outset, it may be observed that the compensation for the loss of the mother, in our considered view, in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is correct. However, compensation in the case of death of the father of the appellant is on the lower side. In view of the age of the deceased being 28 years, a multiplier of 18 could be given. It further appears to us that the earning of the deceased was held at Rs. 2400/- at the time of the accident by the Tribunal. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the P.R.T.C. and, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been determined by the learned Single Judge at Rs. 2400/- per month, the learned Single Judge has not given any clear finding about the monthly income of the deceased, though he has mentioned that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month with an annual increment of Rs. 200/-. Besides this, he was entitled to 20 per cent bonus and Rs. 500/- per month as rent. But considering the circumstances of the claimant and relying on the principle laid down in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979)81 P.L.R.l, he determined the dependency at Rs. 1000/- and applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-, rounded off as Rs. 2 lacs was awarded to the claimant for the death of her father. In our considered view, the firm finding of the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2400/- did not call for any interference. The dependency of the minor can be taken to be 50 per cent. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 2,59,200/- (1200 x 12 x 18) as compensation due to the vehicular death of her father.

6. In view of the re-appraisal of the finding of the learned Single Judge, the compensation would come to Rs. 2,59,200/- i.e. for the death for the death of the father and Rs. 50,000/- on account of the death of the mother. The appellant would be entitled to interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of application till its realisation.

7. The compensation amount be deposited in F.D.R. in the name of the minor which be paid to her on attaining majority. The interest would be however, be regularly paid to the grandfather of the minor for bringing up the minor.