1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1205/2000. Smt.Nathi & Others Vs. Hanuman & Others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 03.05.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC No.661/99 by which only a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- has been awarded to the claimant appellants and remaining claim was rejected. Date of Judgment ::: March 05,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr.Gaurav Jain for the appellant. Mr.Satyendra Sharma for the respondent no.3. By the Court : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 03.5.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim No.661/99 Smt.Nathi & Others Vs.Hanuman & Others by which the Tribunal 2 awarded claim of Rs.4,32,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 Nathi's husband and father of appellant No.2 to 5 and son of appellant No.6 to 7 Jagdish was going on vehicle driven by his brother on 2.12.1998 and at that time, respondent No.2 while driving Tractor No.RJ 19-R-5806 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondents No.3 caused death of Jagdish by driving vehicle with rashness and negligence, hence appellant claimed compensation. Respondent No.1 filed reply and denied accident by his tractor. Respondent No.2 did not file reply and respondent No.3 raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,32,000/- against which this appeal has been filed. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants 3 submitted that learned Tribunal had adopted multiplier of 15 instead of multiplier of 16 and has not awarded interest, hence, the appeal may be accepted and multiplier of 16 along with interest may be awarded, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act does not apply in this case and it is only a guideline and further submitted that as per Schedule only Rs.9,500/- could have been allowed in the form of general damages in case of death whereas Rs.72,000/- has been awarded, hence, multiplier of 16 need not be applied and further submitted that the amount has already been disbursed within the stipulated period, hence, no question of granting interest arises and appeal may be dismissed. In the Post Mortem report Exhibit-2, age of deceased Jagdish has been shown 37 years. This fact has not been disputed by respondents. In such circumstances, learned 4 Tribunal has rightly held that the age of deceased Jagdish was 37 years at the time of accident. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 16 should have been applied whereas the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Apex Court has held in Supe Dei & Others Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd & Another reported in 2002(3) T.C.378 that where no reason has been given by Tribunal for fixing lower multiplier, appropriate multiplier provided in the Second Schedule should be adopted as a guideline and the Apex Court in the aforesaid case (Supra)adopted multiplier of 17 instead of 16 at the age of 32 years. In such circumstances, in the case in hand the age of deceased Jagdish was 37 years hence multiplier of 16 should have been applied instead of 15. If multiplier of 16 is applied, total amount of compensation comes to 2000 x 12 x 16= 3,84,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- on account of loss of consortium, love and affection to the spouse & 5 children whereas as per Schedule only Rs.5000/- could have been awarded as loss of consortium. Thus it becomes clear that as per Schedule Rs.3,84,000/- + 9500=3,93,500/- should have been awarded as compensation whereas Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,32,000/-. In such circumstances, the award of compensation cannot be enhanced by applying multiplier of 16 instead of 15. Perusal of award reveals that the liability of interest has been fastened on the respondent No.3 only in case awarded amount is not paid within 45 days. Normally 12% interest should have been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing claim petition to the date of realisation. In the aforesaid case (Supra), Apex Court allowed interest @9% per annum from the date of filing claim till the date of realisation. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on Chameli Wati & Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & 6 Others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1191 and in Ramzan Khan & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2009 R.A.R 33 (SC) wherein interest @ 12% has been awarded. In the light of the aforesaid judgments (Supra), the appellants are also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 3.5.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur is modified to the extent that the appellants will be entitled to get interest @12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 27.3.1999 till realization of amount subject to adjustment of Rs.38,500/- which has already been awarded to the appellants in excess of their legitimate claim. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. K.