The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurately calculating dependency and considering future prospects of advancement in life and career in determining compensation for motor accident claims.

Tapen Sen, J.

1. This appeal arises out of Award dated 16.1.1988 passed by Mr. S.S.Chahal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in MACT Case No. 22 of 3.4.1987. The Claimant-Appellant No. 1 (Mrs. N. Leelawati) is the widow, the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and the Appellant No. 4 is the son of the deceased.

2. On 22.3.1987, K. Thankappan (hereinafter referred to for the sake brevity as the deceased), who is the husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellants No. 2 to 4 was travelling on his scooter on the Chandigarh-Rajpura road. As he crossed the bus stop in village Chhat, a truck coming from the side of Rajpura bearing No. HYA-3997 which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 herein hit his scooter, as a result of which the deceased fell down and received injuries. He was removed to the Command Hospital at Chandigarh in an injured condition. From the Command Hospital, Chandigarh he was then shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh where he died.

3. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, Respondent No. 2 is the driver while Respondent No. 3 is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Panchkula. The deceased was 41 years at the time of h is accident. As per the Claimants, he was getting a salary o f Rs. 2067.40 paise. On account of the death of the deceased, the Claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation.

4. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim on the grounds that the accident never occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the truck was being driven at a very slow speed on the left side and that no accident took place while the truck was being driven by him and as such the Claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was, "whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased ?" This issue was answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of the Claimants.

6. Issue No. 2 was, "whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYA-3997 driven by Raunki Ram ?" This issue was also decided in the affirmative holding that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Raunki Ram.

7. Issue No. 3 was, "If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so how much and from whom?"

8. This is the crucial issue and on the basis of reasonings given on the basis of the statement of one Devindra Sharma, Pilot Officer (AW2), learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion, that according to the records, the deceased was getting Rs. 1379/- P.M. as salary as against the claim of Appellants to the effect that he was drawing Rs. 2,100/- p.m.

9. Having held so, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased "must be" spending Rs. 379/- P.M. on himself. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the monthly dependency carne to Rs. 1,000/- and the annual dependency to Rs. 12,000/-.

10. Having held the annual dependency to Rs. 1,200/-, the Tribunal then took note of the age of the deceased as being 41 years and applying the multiplier of 18, it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- (12,000 x 18 = 2,16,000/-).

11. Having thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- in all, the Tribunal made the said amount payable by all the Respondents.

12. While calculating, the Tribunal bifurcated the aforementioned amount in the following manners: (a) For Appellant No. 1 = (Mrs. N. Leelawati) (b) For Appellant No. 2 = (Miss Rajeshri) (c) For Appellant No. 3 = (Miss Jaishri) (d) For Appellant No. 4 = (Master Shri Krishna Prasad) It was also held that the Claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the awarded amount.

13. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the Award on various grounds including that the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the d