Judgment:
V.A. Mohta, J.
1. Dissatisfied with the grant of claim of only Rs. 30,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum granted to the legal heirs of the deceased Vallabhdas Panpalia in a Claim Petition No. 3 of 1981 decided on 10th September 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, held Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the driver Narendra Bharati employed by it, responsible for the death of deceased Vallabhdas on account of rash and negligent driving of a bus, rejecting several defences including that of contributory negligence. A claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made. The respondent have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. The only point thus that falls for determination is whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and if yes, to what extent? The following positions emerge from the evidence on record:
(a) Vallabhdas was aged 35 years on the date of the accident;
(b) He was married to Pramilabai petitioner No. 1 five years before the accident;
(c) Kuraari Ujwala aged 4 years--petitioner No. 2 is the only offspring of the wed-lock;
(d) The family has about 18 acres of land out of which half was under dry-cultivation and half was Bagayeet.
(e) Vallabhdas was separate from his adoptive parents, was a science-graduate;
(f) Only Vallabhdas was looking after the cultivation.
(g) His personal expenses were Rs. 5000/- per year.
3. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W. 1 Pramilabai is the only witness on the point of income and property. The respondents have led no evidence. From the record-of-right parcha, Exh. 44, it is apparent that acreage of land is 18. Her testimony is that a sum of Rs. 25000/- was the earning from the land. Having regard to the unchallenged testimony that 50 per cent of the land was under dry-cultivation and 50 percent under wet-cultivation, we see no difficulty in holding that at least Rs. 15003/-was the net income from the agricultural field per year. Personal expenses of Vallabhdas were Rs. 5000/- and thus nis contribution to the dependants was not less than Rs. 10000/- per annum.
4. Life expectancy will have to be calculated minimum at 65 years. Application of multiplier 15 would be reasonable. Thus, the total contribution of the deceased to the dependants could be assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the amount ordered would be received in lump sum, reduction of this amount to 50 per cent would be reasonable and so calculated in our judgment the compensation cannot be less than Rs. 75000/-
5. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is right when he contends that the method of calculation adopted by the learned member of the Tribunal was erroneous. This is how the calculations are made:-
Rs. 25000/- was (he income from the land. Family had only 7.20 acres of land out of which 5 acres were given to the minor daughter.
Out of income of Rs. 25000/- share of Vallabhdas would be Rs. 8000/-. Rs. 5000/- was his personal expenses and, therefore, his annual income was Rs. 3000/-. On the basis of multiplier of 10, the compensation would be Rs. 30000/-.
6. In the first place, the very assumption that the family had only 7.20 acres is patently erroneous. Exh. 44 is on the record. Field Survey No. 83 measuring approximately 18 acres is divided into 3 out of which share of the husband and wife is 7.20 acres each and the rest was the share of the minor daughter.
7. Secondly, the deceased was the only earning member of the family. It is nobody's case that any of the petitioners used to cultivate the land. Indeed the evidence is that presently the land is lying fallow. If that be the position calculating the contribution of the deceased to the dependants only at 1/3 is plainly erroneous. There was no justification for having multiplier of 10 only. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1189 has used multiplier of 20 in a case of a death of an earning wife aged 23 years with retirement age at 58. The other methods of calculation adopted by the learned Tribunal is also on the basis of the income of Rs. 3000/- per year. The same calculation is made while using another yard stick of return of interest of the claim amount. We must mention that in determining compensation in such cases it is nearly impossible to arrive at an exact figure. All one has to aim at is to be minimum wrong.
8. All that remains is consideration of a grievance about the rate of interest Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act grants discretion for awarding interest. In the case of Smt. Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. 1986-4 Supreme Court Cases 503 12 per cent interest per annum has been considered to be reasonable and proper. Hence the rate of interest has also to be enhanced from 6 per cent to 12 per cent per annum.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment along with proportionate costs throughout.