The principles governing the assessment of compensation payable to dependants of the deceased in cases of fatal accidents involving motor vehicles, including the determination of annual dependency, the application of multipliers, and the consideration of relevant factors such as the deceased's prospects, the claimant's age and circumstances, and the likelihood of remarriage.

S.S.SODHI, J.

1. Doctor Mahesh Chander Maudgal a Senior Lecturer at the Medical College, Patiala was killed in an accident which took place between his car and a bus belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on Dec. 6, 1967 near village Kauli on the Patiala-Rajpura road. Mrs. Sunanda Maudgal, the young widow of the deceased doctor preferred a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000.00 under Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , for the loss suffered by her due to her husband s death.

2. The claim filed by Mrs. Sunanda Maudgal was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding that the accident had not been shown to have taken place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the respondent-bus driver. On appeal this finding was overturned by the learned single Judge, who held that the accident was the direct consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A sum of Rupees 45,000.00 was awarded to the claimant as compensation along with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum thereon.

3. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal, filed by Mrs. Sunanda Maudgal, is with regard to the amount awarded as compensation. The finding of the learned single Judge with regard to negligence of the respondent-bus driver was not questioned before us.

4. The evidence on record shows that Dr. Mahesh Chander Maudgal, deceased, was 36 years of age at the time of his death and he had only recently been married to the claimant in Feb., 1967. She was 21 years of age at the time of his death. The couple had no child.

5. Dr. Mahesh Chander Maudgal was a highly qualified doctor. Not only was he M.B.B.S. and M.S., but he also had to his credit medical qualifications from abroad, namely D.O.M.S. (Ogheart-Belgium) and F.R.C.S. (Dublin). As has been mentioned above, he was senior lecturer at the Medical College, Patiala at the time of his death.

6. According to the statement of the claimant Mrs. Sunanda Maudgal, the income of her deceased husband consisted of his salary from the post held by him, as also the amount which he earned by the private practice. This she stated was Rs. 600 to 700.00 per month.

7. Mr. H.S. Sawhney, counsel for the appellant argued that the learned single Judge had erred in not taking into account the income of the deceased from private practice, in computing the loss suffered by the claimant on account of the death of her deceased husband. This contention does not merit acceptance. No claim had been put-forth by the claimant in her application on this account nor is there any evidence on record like income-tax returns or assessment orders to corroborate her statement regarding the income of her deceased husband from this source. In this situation the learned single Judge rightly took the income of the deceased to be only his salary for the post held by him, as had been mentioned in the application filed by the claimant.

8. The total emoluments of Dr. Mahesh Chander Maudgal, at the time of his death, were Rs. 737/- per month, as was deposed to by Shri K.N. Behal (A.W. 8) from the office of the Accountant General, Punjab. The learned single Judge held that out of this sum Rs. 37/- were likely to have been deducted as income-tax and the deceased was also likely to have spent about Rs. 100.00 per month on the maintenance of his car and it was the remaining Rs. 600.00 per month which the deceased and the claimant were utilising for themselves. After excluding the expenses that the deceased must have been spending upon himself, Rs. 250.00 per month was taken to be the amount which must have been spent by the deceased for the maintenance of his wife-claimant. It was on this basis that the annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 3,000.00 . The learned single Judge took 15 to be the appropriate multiplier in the present case and it was on this basis that a sum of Rs. 45,000.00 was awarded as compensation.

9. We are constrained with respect to differ here in the matter of the