FAO 126 of 2006 17.12.2009 Present: Shri Virender Singh Rathroe, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Inder Sharma, Advocate, vice Shri Anshal Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The deceased was involved in an accident on 1.4.2004 when he was traveling in a bus bearing registeration No.HP-31-4399. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation holding that the salary of deceased after deduction of 1/3rd, was Rs. 9000/-. The multiplier of 12 was used by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 8,64,000/- plus 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 8,74,000/- was awarded. The claimants who are the mother, widow and daughter are now in appeal. While determining the age of deceased, the learned Tribunal holds that there is no cogent evidence to establish the age of deceased on record. This finding cannot be sustained. The evidence of PW3 Shri Suresh Nagpal who is the Senior Manager, Finance and Accounts, Sokkia, India Limited with whom the deceased was working, has remained unrebutted. He states that the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 1.9.1972. Ext.PA which is the p ost mortem report also mentions the age of deceased as 31 years. This evidence having remained unrebutted it cannot be said that age of the deceased has not been established. This finding of the Tribunal therefore cannot be sustained holding that the age of the deceased was not 32 years. On the question of salary, I find that learned Tribunal has gone awry and has not considered the material on record. Ext.PW3/A is the salary certificate issued on 2nd June, 2004 stating -2- the monthly salary of deceased as Rs. 15,500/- per month from January to March, 2004. Obviously, this salary would have inceased with the passage of time. There is no reason or explanation on record as to why the learned Tribunal assessed the salary at a different figure. I hold that salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 15,500/- p.m. After deducting 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 5100/- from this amount which would be contributed by the deceased to his family, the datum figure would be Rs. 10,400/- p.m. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12, which is also not in accordance with law. According to the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act, the multiplier of 17 is to be applied. In these circumstances, I hold that the award requires to be modified. The annual dependency of the deceased works out to Rs. 1,24,800/-. When multiplied by 17, it comes to Rs. 21,21,600/-. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is modified to this extent and it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 21,21,600/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- requires to be deducted which has already been granted to the claimants by way of no fault liability. This amount shall carry interest at the rate already given by the Tribunal. The awarded amount be deposited in this Registry within ten weeks from today. No order as to costs. December 17, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge.