IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.406/2004. Date of Decision:12th December,2008. Vidya Devi. …Appellant. Versus: Harnam Singh and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For Respondent-3: Mr.V.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For Responents 1&2. Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The claimant-appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 2nd August, 2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP. No. 12- J/2003 titled as Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Harnam Singh and others on the ground that while computing the compensation, the court below seriously erred in deducting the percentage of the amount which the deceased would have been spending on himself; the multiplier of 14 applied is on the lower side and the interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 9% instead of 6%. In effect the compensation awarded is much on the lower side. On 15th December, 2002 Sh. Karan Vir son of Sh. Kartar Chand met with a road accident and died in the same. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The claimant, aged 45 years, mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1.Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? …OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?. …OPP. 3.Whether the terms of the policy are violated and respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation?. …OPR-3. 4. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger?. …OPR-3. Opportunity to adduce the evidence was afforded to the parties. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that vehicle No. HP-54-4528 owned by Sh.Vijay Singh was being driven by Sh. Harnam Singh in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident in which Sh.Karan Vir died. It was held that the driver was negligent and as such the claim petition under Section 166 of the ‘Act’ was maintainable. It was also held that the vehicle in question was fully insured vide Insurance Policy (Ext.RW-1/C) and the driver was possessing an effective and valid driving license (Ext.RW-1/A) 3 at the time of the accident, hence the Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation to the claimant. On the question of compensation the earnings of the deceased were taken to be Rs.2500/- per month and the said amount was deducted by 2/3rd and figure of Rs.850/- was determined for the purpose of the dependency of the petitioner. Consequently by applying the multiplier of 14, a sum of Rs.1,42,800/- was awarded along with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6%. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. No appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, owner and the driver of the vehicle. The findings of negligence are, therefore, not in dispute. The present appeal pertains only with regard to the issue of enhancement of compensation. From the testimony of Smt. Vidya Devi (PW-1) as also Sh. Vijay Kumar (RW-1) it is evident that the deceased was employed as labourer with respondent (RW-1) for the purpose of loading and unloading the material from the tractor in question and was getting salary of Rs.2500/- per month. PW-1 has further deposed that after having lost her husband, prior to the death of Sh.Karan Vir, the deceased was the only male earning member of the family. From the testimony it is evident that the family had no source of income as they were wholly dependant upon the deceased. 4 There cannot be any straight jacket formula or mathematical calculation of deducting the amount which the deceased would have been spending on himself. Each case has to be considered in the facts and circumstances prevalent and proved on record. In the present case, the deduction to the extent of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased is on the higher side. The family was left in a state of penury and the mother lost her son at a young age of 17 years. This has caused great sufferings and mental agony to the entire family. The deceased was contributing everything to the family. Some guess work is required to be carried out while deducting fair and just compensation. Therefore, in my view the deduction in the present case ought to have been by 50%. Accordingly for the purpose of loss of dependency the figure is computed to be Rs.1250/- instead of Rs.850/- per month. On the question of multiplier the age of the petitioner being 45 years, in my view, the multiplier of 15 ought to have applied. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs.1250x12= Rs.15,000 x15= Rs.2,25,000/-. The damages are of two kinds i.e. pecuniary and non pecuniary. The court below has not awarded anything towards the loss of consortium and funeral charges etc. In my view, a lump sum figure of Rs.35,000/- would be just, fair and adequate under all the heads of non pecuniary damages. 5 The accident took place in the year 2002, the banking rate of interest was definitely higher than 6%. But there is nothing on record to prove the same. The courts have been consistently taking the view that the rate of interest should be 9%. In my view the claimant ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 7%. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is accepted for the aforesaid reasons and the impugned award is modified accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 12, 2008(R)