1994 Supreme(MP) 428

S.K. Dubey and A.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Chhoti Bai v. Surjeet Singh
M.A. No. 24 of 1992 (G); Decided on 9.5.1994*.

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110B -- young man dying -- multiplier should be of 16.

        (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110B -- young widow left -- amount of Rs. 15,000/- is conventional compensation for loss of consortium.

        (3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110B -- young death -- claimants widow one child and parents -- entitled to total sum of Rs. 92,000/- with 12% interest.

        ¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110[k & ;qod dh e`R;q & 16 dk xq.kd gksuk pkfg,A

        ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110[k & ;qok fo/kok & nkaiR; dh gkfu ds fy, #- 15]000@& dh jde ikjaifjd izfrdj gSA

        ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110[k & ;qokoLFkk esa e`R;q & nkosnkj fo/kok] ,d cPpk rFkk ekrk&firk &12% Ctk; ds lkFk #- 92]000@& dh dqy jde ds gdnkj gSaA

        Learned counsel for the claimants contended that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ashadevi (1988 JU 485), as the deceased was on the threshold of his career, the Multiple ought to have been applied of 16. It was also submitted that the dependency assessed is on the lower side as the deceased has left his young widow, a child and old parents. Therefore, he would not have spent on himself a sum of Rs. 350/- per month. Therefore, dependency, so determined, deserves to be increased. Shri Verma further submitted that in the light of the

        decision of this Court in Fizahais case (1993 JU 437), in the head of consortium, a nominal figure ought to have been awarded.

        Held: After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct. The multiplier, looking to the age of the deceased, ought to have been 16. Similarly, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the amount of compensation in the head of consortium which, as a conventional figure and looking to the age of the widow we fix at Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, in al1, now the claimants/appel1ants shal1 be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 76,800/- plus Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, the total figure comes to Rs. 91,800/-. To this figure, we add Rs. 200/- to make it a round figure of Rs. 92,000/-. On that, the c1aimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 12/- per cent per annum from the date of the application. Of course, the Insurance Company shal1 be entitled to adjustment of the amount deposited and the proportionate interest. A grievance has been made by the claimants that the tribunal has not awarded interest on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants by way of interim award under section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The grievance of the claimants counsel is right. On that amount also, till the date of deposit, the claimants shal1 he entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum till payment.

        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.