1. This appeal, under the Motor Vehicles Act, is at the instance of the applicants in a proceeding under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and is directed against the award, dated 15th July, 1991, passed by the learned Tribunal below in Claim Petition No. 184 of 1989, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount jointly and severally. The learned Tribunal, further, held that the liability of the Insurance Company, being Respondent No.3, would be limited to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal, further, held that since a sum of Rs.15,000/- has already been deposited by the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company in the proceedings under Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the balance liability of the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company would be limited only to a further sum of Rs.35,000/- with proportionate costs and interest payable, thereon.
2. It appears that the rate of interest, however, was not specified in the order disposing of the Claim Petition No. 184 of 1989.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel, Mr. Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Yajnik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. In spite of service, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared before this Court.
4. I find that the Tribunal below found that the driver of the offending car was responsible for the accident and that the deceased was not in fault. It, further, appears from the record that it has been established from the Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased that he had annual income of Rs.15,000/-. It also appears that the vehicle was insured by the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company and it has not disputed the award either by filing any Cross Objections or any separate appeal.
5. Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before me that having regard to the fact that the victim died at the age of 30 years, the Tribunal below committed a substantial error of law in applying the multiplier of 15.
6. After taking into consideration the fact that the victim was an Income Tax assessee and died at an age of 30 years only, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case, where multiplier of 17 should be applied and over and above, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- should be paid for the loss of consortium to the widow and the children. If we deduct 1/3 amount, as the personal expenses of the deceased victim, the amount of dependency would come to Rs.1,70,000/-, by application of the multiplier of 17. Over and above a sum of Rs.10,000/- should be paid as consortium. The accident having occurred in the year 1985, the rate of interest, in my view, should be 12 per cent per annum, from the date of application till 31st December, 1999 and thereafter, the interest will be payable at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. Since, the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company has fully satisfied its liability, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should jointly and severally pay the balance amount.
7. The award is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the balance amount, positively, within one month, from today. If any, amount is deposited pursuant to the award, the Tribunal will release the said amount in favour of the appellants, forthwith.
8. Office is directed to communicate the order to the concerned Tribunal, immediately. Let the lower Court record be also sent down, immediately.
UMESH (BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA,CJ)