IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No. 338/2004. Date of Decision :15th July, 2008. H.R.T.C. and another. …Appellants . Versus: Simro Devi and others. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.H.S.Rawat, Advocate. For Respondents. None. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 1st January, 2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharmshala in MACT Petition No. 72-P/II/2000, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,41,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Subhkaran. Smt. Simro Devi-claimant No.1 (widow), Sh. Ranjit-claimant No.2 (son), Indu Bala-claimant No.3 (daughter), Dulo Ram-claimant No.4 and Smt.Gita Devi- claimant No.5 (father and mother respectively) filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) claiming 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- On 26th April, 2000 Sh.Subhkaran-husband of petitioner No.1, was travelling in a H.R.T.C. bus bearing No. HP-33-5412 from Sanghla to Palampur which met with an accident at Neugal Seri, H.P. resulting into the death of Sh.Subhkaran. At the time of the death, he was employed in the H.P. Krishi Vidyalaya farm at Sanghla and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,620/- per month. As per the post mortem report the age of the deceased was 41 years. Appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased Sh.Subhkaran died due to the fatal injuries suffered by him while travelling in bus No.HP-33-5412 being driven by Sh. Parkash Singh in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal computed the loss of dependency to the family to be Rs. 1,750/- per month or Rs.21,000/- per annum, thus, applying a multiplier of 16, the compensation for loss of income was determined to be Rs. 3,36,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was also awarded towards cremation charges . The vehicle was not insured and the compensation was directed to be paid by the H.R.T.C. along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of payment. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the record. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on the limited ground that the court has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 which is on the higher side and ought to be reduced. No doubt, the multiplier applied by the Court is on the higher side. In the present case, it has come on record that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. Due to sudden and unfortunate demise, the entire family was left to fend for themselves. The claimants are the widow, children and aged parents of the deceased who was the sole bread earner of the family Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the multiplier of 14 ought to have applied by the Tribunal and it is directed so. Accordingly, the claimant is held to be entitled for a sum of Rs.21,000 x14= Rs.2,94,000/- towards the loss of income. The award is modified to this extent. All other sums due and payable in terms of the award shall be paid by the H.R.T.C. to the claimants. For the aforesaid reason, the present appeal is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 15, 2008(R)