R.V. Raveendran, C.J.
1. The claimants in Claim Case No. 75 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, have filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 2.12.1999.
2. Claimants are the widow, a son and four unmarried daughters of one Sardar Singh Sikarwar who was a Senior Auditor in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department at Gwalior. He died on 29.9.1998 on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 27.9.1998. It is not in dispute that he was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and it is established by Exh. P4. The fact that he was drawing gross salary of Rs. 9,716.50, is also established from the salary certificate, Exh. P3.
3. The Tribunal determined the total loss of dependency at Rs. 4,69,888 and by adding Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, it awarded Rs. 4,76,888 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded is not sufficient. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation requires to be increased.
5. As indicated above, the deceased was aged 52 years. The applicable multiplier as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would be 11. But as the deceased would have been in service only for 8 more years, it will not be proper to apply the multiplier of 11, when the earning period before retirement was only 8 years. The income during his retiring period would be 50 per cent of the income during the earning period. In the circumstances, we have to apply the multiplier as 9.5 or by rounding off as 10.
6. The income of the deceased was Rs. 9,716 having regard to the fact that he would have earned increments during the remainder of his service, we can conveniently take his income as Rs. 10,000 per month or Rs. 1,20,000 per annum. 10 per cent thereof should be deducted on account of income tax, professional tax and Anr. incidental expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased will be Rs. 1,08,000. Having regard to the fact that the deceased had a large family (consisting of wife, one son and four unmarried daughters) and the children were all of a college/school going age when considerable amount will be required for education, we can deduct only 1/5th towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of the standard 1/3rd. Thus, the deduction would be Rs. 21,600 for personal expenses and the contribution to the family would have been Rs. 86,400 per annum. By applying the multiplier of 10, the total amount of dependency will be Rs. 8,64,000. Adding Rs. 5,000 for the loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses and treatment expenses during the period of two days when he was alive after the accident, claimants would be entitled to Rs. 8,74,000 as compensation.
7. The learned Counsel for the insurer vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require to be increased. He submitted that the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd and not 1/5th. We do not agree. There is no rule that the deduction should always be 1/3rd. While, it is true that the deduction is normally 1/3rd, but if the number of dependants are more, necessarily the amount spent by the breadwinner towards his own personal expenses will be much less. In the present case, the deceased had a son and four unmarried daughters. All of them were of college/school going age. Considering these facts, we have deducted only 1/5th instead of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
8. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part and increase the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,76,888 to Rs. 8,74,000. While maintaining the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement of amount will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
9. Insofar as the distribution of amount among the legal heirs and the deposits, etc., are concerned, the directions given by the Tribunal will hold good. Parties to bear their own costs.