The court emphasized the application of legal precedents in determining dependency and applying the multiplier in motor accident compensation cases.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Respondent No. 1 has filed cross-objection challenging the quantum of compensation.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 2. 12. 1991 about 8 in the morning, while the deceased Lithru was crossing Agra-Bombay road to reach agricultural field near Rairu Farm, bus driven by respondent no. 2 dashed against him which caused his death. The claim petition was filed by the mother appellant No. 1 and elder brother appellant No. 2. Claims Tribunal after hearing parties held that it is a case of contributory negligence of the deceased and the bus driver. Claims Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 600 per month and determined the dependency at Rs. 400 per month, i. e. , Rs. 4,800 per annum and awarded compensation by applying the multiplier of 15. In addition, compensation towards mental agony and loss of love and affection has also been awarded.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that it is not a case of contributory negligence. He submitted that when claimants have come forward with a case that the deceased was earning Rs. 40 per day, his monthly income has wrongly been assessed at Rs. 600 by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that today income of a daily wager is much higher and compensation ought to be determined on the basis of the income as exists on the date of arguments of the appeal. He submitted that dependency of the parents of the deceased should be 2/3rd and not l/3rd of the income of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Apex court has not laid down the correct law in the case of Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra, 1999 ACJ 1400 (SC ). He submitted that various High Courts have taken a different view and referred number of judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan, allahabad and Madras in support of his contention. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that appellant No. 2, who is elder brother of the deceased, is a legal representative of the deceased and is entitled for compensation. Appellant No. 2 was dependent upon the deceased. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment in the case of Donat Louis Machado (supra), is an isolated case which has not been followed by any of the courts. The counsel for the appellants submitted that minimum income of the deceased should be determined at Rs. 10,000 per annum and multiplier of 15 should be applied to this figure and a further sum of Rs. 20,000 should be awarded under various heads.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for respondents submitted that once the Claims Tribunal has found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600, dependency should have been determined at Rs. 200 per month and the multiplier should be applied considering the age of the mother of the deceased at the time of accident. Since the claimants have come forward with a case that age of the mother of the deceased appellant No. 1 was 50 years at the time of the accident, therefore, multiplier of 11 will be applicable in the case and the Claims Tribunal has determined the compensation at much higher rate. He submitted that the compensation should not be more than Rs. 26,400. The counsel for the respondents then submitted that the Claims Tribunal has deducted rs. 10,000 towards contributory negligence, whereas negligence of the deceased was more than fifty per cent and, therefore, at least fifty per cent amount should have been deducted from the quantum of compensation.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) AS regards the question whether appellant No, 2 is a legal representative of the deceased, he is the elder brother of the deceased. He has admitted in his deposition that he along with the deceased was going for labour and he has daily wage income. Even otherwise, since class I heir, i. e. , mother of the deceased is available, therefore, appellant No. 2 being class II heir