The court's decision was based on the assessment of compensation considering the deceased's monthly income, dependency, and other relevant factors.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred aggrieved by the award dated 19. 8. 1999 passed by Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 3045 of 1999.

( 2 ) IN an accident dated 18. 8. 1996 one prakash Banerjee, aged 42 years died when suresh drove the truck No. MP 21-G 6213 in a rash and negligent manner. Deceased was pillion rider on the scooter driven by nirmal Tamrakar. The truck dashed the scooter from behind. The deceased was dragged for 20 feet and ultimately dashed against a wall. The truck stopped. Prakash banerjee died on the spot owing to injury suffered in the accident. F. I. R. was lodged and Crime Case No. 570 of 1996 was registered at police station. The charge-sheet was filed before the Additional C. J. M. The deceased was an Income Tax Officer. His monthly salary was more than Rs. 9,000. He was maintaining a large family. He was the sole breadwinner. The compensation of Rs. 20,41,024 was claimed along with interest.

( 3 ) THE owner and the driver remained ex parte. In the written statement filed by the insurer, it was stated that excessive compensation has been claimed. The accident was a head-on collision. As such, the driver of the scooter and of the truck, both were equally responsible. The deceased was pillion rider, risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy of insurance. The driver of the truck did not have valid and effective licence at the time of accident and as such no liability can be fastened on the insurance company to make the payment of compensation.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the accident took place owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck owing to which Prakash Banerjee succumbed to death. Rs. 9,26,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

( 5 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation only. Mr. Anil Lala submits that the appropriate multiplier has not been applied. The salary of the deceased was above Rs. 11,000 and not Rs. 9,541.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that basic salary was Rs. 10,300, dearness allowance was rs. 412 and the house rent allowance was rs. 300. Thus the total gross salary was rs. 11,012. However, after deduction of the income tax and H. R. A. the monthly income from salary was Rs. 9,541. Thus it is considered to be the reasonable assessment of monthly income of the deceased, by the Tribunal. We are not inclined to enhance monthly income, as prayed in the facts of this case as revised salary has been taken into consideration which the deceased was drawing at the time of accident.

( 7 ) AFTER making 1\3rd deduction which deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 6,361. Thus the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 6,361 x 12 = Rs. 76,332. Multiplier of 13 is applicable, thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 76,332 x 13 = rs. 9,92,316. In addition, the widow is entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000. The claimants are entitled for loss of expectancy of life Rs. 5,000, for loss to estate rs. 2,500 and funeral expenses Rs. 2,000. Thus, the total compensation comes to rs. 10,06,816. The total compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation.

( 8 ) THE appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.

.