1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1027/1999 (Smt.Shashi Bala and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar and ors.) 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. CROSS OBJ.NO.36/2003 (Smt.Shashi Bala Vs. Surendra Kumar) Date of Judgment : 06-08-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Vinay Mathur,for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Agrawal & Mr.K.N.Tiwari, for the respondents. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of dependents of deceased Prem Prakash for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa vide judgment dated 18.4.1998 whereby a total sum of Rs.2,31,000/- was awarded by way of compensation on account of death of deceased Prem Prakash caused in the accident. Cross Objection No.36/2003 has also been filed in the matter on behalf of National Insurance Company-respondent no.3 which is also being decided along with this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the dependents of deceased-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has has failed to award adequate compensation as the Tribunal has deducted 2 2/3rd of the earning for the expenses of the deceased himself. The deceased was 20 years old and he was survived by his father and mother and as such the Tribunal should have deducted only 1/3rd for the expenses of deceased himself. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 23.7.09 in SLP(C) No.15167/2008-National Ins.Co. Vs. Gurumallamma and anr. It is further submitted that interest on additional enhanced amount should be awarded @12% per annum from the date of claim petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Ins.Company has submitted that interest @6% per annum from the date of appeal should be awarded in view of the prevalent rate of interest in present state of economy. It is further submitted that deduction of 2/3rd amount as against the expenses of deceased is justified and same calls for no interference. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in II(2000) ACC 602 (SC)-Nonat Louis Machado and ors. Vs. L.Ravindra & ors. wherein Hon'ble Apex court has taken a view 3 that in case the unmarried son/person would have survived, he would have spent 2/3rd for his family and 1/3rd can be spent on himself and, as such, Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view in deducting 2/3rd amount of his earnings and has found 1/3rd amount by way of dependency of surviving persons including parents and unmarried dependents. As regards the multiplier, it has been submitted that instead of adopting multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal, multiplier of 15 deserves to be awarded in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.-(2009)6 SCC 121 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court provided that multiplier envisaged in the said judgment is to be followed in all the Tribunals/courts so as to award just compensation as well as in the interest of uniformity, consistency and equality of treatment in judgment making process. He has further submitted that order of increasing the interest in case of non- payment of the award amount within 3 months from 12% to 18% per annum is penal and that deserves to be quashed and amount already paid should be adjusted against the rest of 4 the claim amount. 4. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that deceased was young man of 20 years at the time of death and he was survived by his old father & mother. The age of mother is 40 years and, as such, multiplier deserves to be adopted looking to the age group of mother and, as such, as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been held that while awarding adequate compensation, all Tribunals/courts should maintain uniformity and consistency in decision making process and, as such, in case of death, multiplier of 15 has been fixed for the age group of 36-40 years. In the instant case, multiplier is to be reckoned looking to the age of mother of deceased who was 40 years old, so a multiplier of 15 deserves to be adopted. As regards the deduction of expenses of deceased himself, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) that in case of deceased being bachelor, and survived by father and mother, 50:50 amount deserves to be deducted but in case bachelor 5 is survived by mother or other non-earning dependent sisfers or brothers, deduction of 1/3rd is required to be made. Accordingly, in the instant case, instead of deducting 2/3rd amount as against the expenses of deceased, deduction of ½ deserves to be made. As submitted, the condition for penal interest on the award amount being not paid within three months, is also not sustainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Ins. Co. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and ors.-I(2004) ACC,581 (SC) and the same deserves to be set aside and if any amount is paid in excess to the normal interest rate provided , same deserves to be adjusted against the enhanced additional claim amount found due. As the case is old and claimant has already been awarded interest @12% on the original award and hence with a view to maintain the balance of equity between the parties, interest @6% deserves to be awarded from the date of appeal. Thus the amount of compensation may be computed as under: Rs.3000-(minus)50%=Rs.1500x12x15(multiplier) =Rs.2,70,000 - (minus) Rs.2,16,000 (already awarded= Rs. 54,000/-(to be additionally 6 awarded) 5. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.54,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 16.7.1998, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The condition of payment of interest @18% per annum in case of non-payment of award amount within three months in the impugned award is set aside and in case of any amount is paid on this count, the same shall be set off from the additional enhanced amount found due. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. The cross-objection filed on behalf of Ins. Company-respondent no.3 also stands disposed of. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.h-21-22