Through Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Astley Hall, Dehradun v. Opp. Parties/

A truck bearing No. UP 07-G3793 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver came and hit the deceased from behind causing grievous injuries on his body and the handcart also got damaged. The deceased was taken to Doon Hospital for treatment where he died. The deceased was about 29 years at the time of accident and it was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The claimants, who are dependents of the deceased, filed the claim petition against the Opposite Parties for a compensation of Rs.9,92,000/- on account of dependency loss due to the death of the deceased. The opposite parties contested the claim petition before the Tribunal by filing their separate written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 stated in its written statement that the O.P. No.1 is the authorized driver with a valid driving licence and the truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company at the time of the accident.

It has also been alleged that the truck was being driven slowly at moderate speed and hence the O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The O.P. No.3, the New India Insurance Company has filed its written statement that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck and the deceased was not earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per moth. It has also been alleged that the amount claimed is excessive. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and partly allowed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 1,33,000/- against the O.P. No.3- New India Assurance Company Ltd. Accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/claimants have come up in this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not correctly applied the multiplier according to the age of deceased as per second Schedule provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and confines his prayer to correct the multiplier according to the Schedule 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and has further submitted that the amount of 1/3rd has wrongly been deducted from the amount of dependency, which may be corrected.

While deciding the Issues No.1 and 2, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day by way of selling vegetables, It was also been found that the deceased used to send an amount of Rs.1000/- per month for meeting the household expenses by way of the money order to his home in Gonda District. As such, the total annual dependency comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of amount towards personal expenses. We are of the view that the Tribunal has also erred while applying the multiplier of ‘16’. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone though the record of the case and perused the impugned judgment. The age of the deceased was -29- years as held by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence. According to the Schedule provided in the aforesaid Act, the multiplier should have been applied ‘18’. After deducting expense from the income, the Tribunal held that the deceased used to send the amount of Rs.1,000/- per annum to his wife to meet out the domestic expense and thus calculated the annual loss of dependency of Rs.