ORDER
N.K. Jain, J.
1. This appeal filed Under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award dated 3.11.1988 rendered by the IVth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in claim case No. 71/86 awarding compensation Rs. 78,000/- to the appellants in a fatal accident action.
2. The respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd. has also filed cross-objection challenging the impugned award.
3. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children of late Laxmmarayan Yadav who died in a motor accident that took place on 24.6.1986 at Indore involving a Matador bearing Registration No. MBI 9073 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., for 'third party risk'.
4. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 36 years and earning salary Rs. 750/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 500/- per month i.e., Rs. 6,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 20 came to a gross figure of 1.20 lacs which was, however, reduced by 35 per cent on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus a sum of Rs. 78,000/- only was awarded as compensation.
5. This appeal has been filed on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation while the cross-objection has been taken seeking reduction of the amount.
6. We have heard Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri V.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. None has, however, appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
7. The main grievance of the appellants is that no deduction could have been made in law on account of lump sum payment or uncertainties of life.
As against it, the respondent Insurance Company seeks reduction in the amount of compensation on the ground that multiplier of 20 applied in assessing the compensation, is on higher side. It is contended that having regard to the age of the deceased as also of the claimants, at the most a multiplier of 15 could be applied.
8. As regards the deduction on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life, the approach of the Tribunal, we find, is not proper being not in tune with the recent trend of decisions of this Court as also of other High Courts. This Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Kunwar, 1983 ACJ 629 has held:
'As the further prospect of the deceased has not been taken into account in determining the dependency, in our opinion, no deduction should be made on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.'
9. In a later decision in Lajwanti v. Keshav Prasad Soni, 1984 ACJ 664 this Court reiterating the aforesaid view further observed that no deduction on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life is allowed in view of the steep fall in the value of money. High Courts of Rajasthan, Madras and Delhi have also taken similar view (see : 1983 ACJ 489, 1983 ACJ 424 and 1981 ACJ 244).
10. This Court again in a recent decision passed on 10.12.1996 in Misc. Appeal No. 214/88, Fakhruddin v. Bant Singh has reiterated the view that having regard to the rising inflation and devaluation of money value, no reduction on account of lump sum payment is called for.
11. Even the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994 now recognizes this principle that no deduction should be made on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life. By way of Amendment Act 54 of 1994 new Sections 163A and 163B and IInd Schedule have been added for the purposes of calculating compensation by applying multiplier method. No provision is, however, made in these provisions for making any deduction as aforesaid.
12. In the instant case, the future prospects of the deceased and general depreciation in purchasing power of money have not been taken into consideration. That being so, the Tribunal clearly fell into error in reducing amount of compensation by 35 per cent on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life.
13. Coming to the question of multiplier, as already indicated, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 36 years. In the case of Susamma Thomas, 1994 MPLJ 520 (SC), 1994(2) SCC 176 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the maximum multiplier can be upto 16 only. However, in a later decision dated 7th May, 1996 rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 7760-61, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chand, the Apex Court has held that in view of the newly added Sections 163A and 163B and Ilnd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the maximum multiplier can be upto 18. It is true that the accident in question had taken place prior to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Amendment Act 54 of 1994, nevertheless, guidelines can be taken from the provisions of this Act of 1988 in the matter of ascertaining the dependency as also the multiplier. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions, the age of the deceased as also of the claimants, the proper multiplier in the case would be 16.
14. The Tribunal on evaluation of evidence has held that income of the deceased was Rs. 750/- per month. No serious challenge is made by any side to this finding of the Tribunal and we also see no reason to take a different view of the matter. For the purpose of ascertaining dependency this amount has been reduced and rightly so by Rs. 250/- in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself. That being so, the dependency in the instant case comes to Rs. 500 x 12 = Rs. 6,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 96,000/-. To this a sum of Rs. 4,000/- may be added on account of loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased. Thus, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced to Rs. 1.00 lac.
15. We thus allow the appeal and reject the cross-objection raising the amount of compensation from Rs. 78,000/- to Rs. 1.00 lac. Out of this amount, Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased while each of his minor child will get Rs. 20,000/-. The amount payable to the minors shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit account with some Nationalised Bank for the period till these minors attain majority. The direction made by the Tribunal regarding payment of interest is upheld with the clarification that the enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry the same interest from the date of filing of petition till payment.
16. The appeal as also the cross-objection thus stand disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs.