IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO No.182 of 2004 Reserved on : September 26, 2008 Date of Decision : October 1, 2008 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Shila Devi and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. For respondents1 to 3:M/s. Anil Tanwar and Manoj Thakur, Advocates. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE. The Award dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H. P. in M.A. C. Petition No. 16- S/2 of 2002, titled as Shila Devi and others vs. Horticulture Department Office and others, has been assailed by the State on the ground that the compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum, awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The claimants, respondents herein, being the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased Shri Birbal (aged 24 years), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Act, 1988, averring that the deceased, who was travelling in Truck No.HPS-1267 owned by the State and driven by the private respondent No.4 herein Shri Laiq Ram, met with an accident in which Shri Birbal died. Compensation was claimed as there was loss of income to the family. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Birbal had died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2, as alleged? …………. OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? …………..OPP 3. Whether petition is barred by limitation as alleged, if so, its effect? ……….. OPR-2 4. Relief.” The parties examined their respective witnesses and after appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal allowed the petition by holding that Shri Birbal had died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by Shri Liaq Ram and the deceased being poor labourer was having a monthly income of Rs.600/-, as such, after determining the loss of dependency of Rs.500/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the total loss of income was determined to be Rs.96,000/- Rs.3,000/- for conventional charges and Rs.5,000/- for consortium respectively, was also awarded. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. While making the submissions, the learned counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to the grounds of appeal, whereby the appellants themselves have admitted that the income of the deceased could not be more than Rs.600/- per month and after deducting the amount spent by the deceased on himself, the dependency factor would work out to Rs.400/- per month. In my view, the admission of the appellants is sufficient enough for me to adjudicate the matter and, therefore, I take the loss of dependency to be Rs.400/- per month. From the statement of the claimants witnesses Smt. Shila Devi (PW-1), the age of the deceased undisputedly was 24 years at the time of the death and the age of his wife was 19 years and the daughter one year. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that in the present case, the multiplier of 16 is on the lesser side and in exercise of my powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, the multiplier is enhanced from 16 to 18 and, therefore, the loss of income is determined to Rs.400 x 12 x 18 = Rs.86,400/-. . At the time of the death, the deceased was the sole bread earner. Due to the unfortunate calamity, the family had to suffer and the poor wife had to bring up the minor child, all by herself. 4 The Tribunal in all has awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-. In my view, a sum of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional charges and loss of consortium, is also on the lesser side and the same needs to be enhanced. The interest of justice would be met if the remaining amount of Rs.17,600/- is considered towards conventional charges, loss of consortium and funeral charges. Ordered accordingly. The impugned Award is modified accordingly and the appeal is disposed of as such. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 1, 2008. (rana)