1 S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.370/1998 BABULAL SHARMA & Ors. V/s SHRI RAEESH AHMED & Ors. Date of order : 15.2.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K.N. Tiwari, for the appellants. Shri Tej Prakash Sharma for respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants met with an accident on November 15, 1993 around 1.15 pm while Smt. Nirmala Devi was coming on luna with her husband and succumbed to the injuries. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the earning of the deceased who was engaged in preparing toys at her resident and used to earn Rs.2000/- pm. Learned counsel also referred the accounts diary Ex. P 14 produced before the learned Tribunal for the accounts maintained. The other argument of the learned counsel pertains to the point that the multiplier of 18 should have been invoked in view of the Second Schedule of the Motor vehicles Act instead of 17 as applied by the learned Tribunal. 2 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that diary referred by the learned counsel on the point of accounts maintained by the deceased showing monthly income of Rs.2000/- is not being kept for keeping regular accounts of making toys and it does not disclose that how much income was earned on account of the business and it is simply a casual book-let for making stray entries. In view of the above submissions and on perusal of the diary, it appears that the diary has not been maintained regularly and it could not be ascertained as to how much income per year or per month was earned out of the business by the deceased and as such the finding on the point by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. With regard to the point of applying the appropriate multiplier the guidelines can be sought regarding the structured liability provided under Second Schedule, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei and others v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (2002 ACJ 1166) as under : 3 “While considering the question of just compensation payable in a case all relevant factors including the appropriate multiplier are to be kept in mind. The position is well settled that the Second Schedule under section 163-A to the Act which gives the amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under the section can be taken as a guideline while determining the compensation under section 166 of the Act.” In view of the above guidelines of the Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court instead of multiplier of 17, appropriate multiplier of 18 should have been applied. As such on applying multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,09,000/-. Therefore, while maintaining the terms of the award upto the date of filing the appeal i.e. April 10, 1998, the amount of award is enhanced from Rs.1,99,000/- to Rs.2,09,000/- from the date of filing of appeal with interest @ 9% p.a. and failure 4 to make payment under the award within three months, shall entail interest @ 12% p.a. The award stands modified accordingly. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Chauhan/