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.529/2000. Smt.Vandana Bansal & Another Versus. Krishan Gopal & Others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 04.1.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim No.1006/98 by which the Tribunal has awarded of Rs.6,42,000/-. Date of Judgment ::: 6th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr.Gaurav Jain for the appellant. Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma for the respondents. Miss.Rekha for the respondent No.5. By the Court : This appeal has been filed by the by the appellants against the award dated 04.1.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur ..2.. in Claim No.1006/98 (Vandana Bansal & Others Vs. Krishan Gopal & Others) by which the tribunal awarded claim of Rs.6,42,000/- against which this appeal has been preferred. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Narender Bansal husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 and son of Respondent No.7 & 8 was travelling in Car No.RJ 14-3C 186 which was driven by respondent No.5 rashly and negligently. The respondent No.4 was the registered owner of the said Car and it was insured by respondent No.6, which collided with Truck No.DL.IGA 1436 on 17.7.1998 which was driven by respondent No.2 negligently. Narender Bansal died in the accident. Respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the Truck and it was insured by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 & 6 filed reply and denied their liability and raised many ..3.. objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. Respondent No.1,2,4 & 5 did not appear. After recording evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,42,000/- against respondent No.4 and 6 and dismissed the claim, petition against respondent No.1, 2 & 3, against which, this appeal has been filed. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 instead of multiplier of 18 and has not awarded interest, hence, the appeal may be accepted and multiplier of 18 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 ..4.. damages in case of death whereas Rs.42,000/- have been awarded, hence, multiplier of 18 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-7, age of deceased Narender Bansal has been shown 26 years. The appellants have also proved the age of deceased by producing Secondary School Examination Certificate in which his date of Birth shown as 21st July 1972. Thus it becomes clear that at the time of death Narender Bansal was 26 years old. This fact has not been disputed by respondents. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the age of deceased Narender Bansal was 26 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned tribunal has ..5.. committed error in ascertaining Rs.60,000/- per annum income of the deceased. This argument is devoid of force in the light of Income Tax Returns submitted by the deceased and proved the appellants. The Return Ex.16 for the assessment year 1996-97 has been submitted in April 1997 in which income of the deceased has been shown as R.49,540/- and Income Tax Return Exhibit-17 for the assessment year 1997-1998 has been submitted by deceased on 13.1.1998 in which the deceased has shown his income as Rs.58,817. Normally the assessee suppresses his income in the Income Tax Return whereas the deceased has shown his income to be Rs.58,817/- for the assessment year 1997-98. In such circumstances it can very well be presumed that his income was Rs.60,000/- per annum at the time of his death. In such circumstances, learned tribunal has not committed any error in assessing income of deceased as Rs.60,000/- per annum. ..6.. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 18 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.A.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)applied multiplier of 17 instead of 16 at the age of 32 years. In such circumstances, in the case in hand the age of deceased Narender Bansal was 26 years hence multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 15. If multiplier of 18 is applied, total amount of compensation comes to 40,000 x 12 x 18= 7,20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,000/- on account of loss of consortium, love and affection to the spouse, mother & ..7.. children and funeral expenses whereas as per Schedule only Rs.9500/- could have been awarded as loss of consortium etc. Thus it becomes clear that as per Schedule Rs.7,20,000/- + 9500=7,29,500/- should have been awarded as compensation whereas Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,42,000/-. Perusal of award reveals that the liability of interest has been fastened on the respondent No.4 & 6 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 Supe Dei & Others Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd & Another(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 & ..8.. Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & 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 04.1.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur is modified to the extent that the award amount is enhanced from Rs.6,42,000/- to Rs.7,29,500/- and the appellants will be entitled to get interest @12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 04.12.1998 till realisation of amount from respondent No.4 & 6 jointly and severally. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. K