ORDER
V.K. Bali, J.
1. I propose to decide five connected cases F.A.O. Nos. 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738 and 1739 of 1994 by this common order. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest that these matters may be decided in the manner as thought over by the Court as all these matters arise from the same accident.
2. At the very outset, Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants states at the bar that he does not press F.A.O. Nos. 1735 and 1738 of 1994. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
3. There is no necessity at all to give detailed facts as the prayer in all the surviving appeals is for the enhancement of the compensation from the one already determined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, suffice, therefore, it to say that the accident occurred on 6.2.1989 at about 9.00 a.m. between Maruti Car CH-O1C/8551 and Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-22/6010 near Mundhal. In the claim petition all the claimants/appellants had stated that the car in question was being driven by Murli Dhar Mehta and the other occupants were Wazir Chand Mehta, Budha Bai @ Sheela/Wanti, Lalita and her sister's husband Satish Mehta and the car was being driven at a moderate speed and when it was about 4/5 kilometers ahead of Mundhal in the area of village Madan Heri, a bus HR-22/6010 came from the opposite direction driven by Jage Ram, respondent No. 2, so arrayed in the claim petition, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Maruti car which was dragged upto 10-15 karams towards left side of the bus and on account of the accident all the five occupants of the car died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Tulsi Dass who reported the matter to the police. This accident gave rise to five claim petitions. As mentioned above, it is only in three matters i.e. three petitions giving rise to appeals bearing No. 1736, 1737 and 1739 of 1994, a prayer has been made for further enhancement of the compensation. It may be mentioned here that in F.A.O. No. 1737 of 1994, Smt. Uma Mehta widow and father of the deceased Murli Dhar had filed the petition. They have claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. A total sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the claimants and even though evidence was led to show that Murli Dhar, at the time of accident was 45 years of age and earning Rs. 6000/- per month, it was held by the Tribunal that the claimants have not been able to show that they were dependents of the deceased Murlidhar. It is on that count alone that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was granted to the claimants-appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed. It is, inter-alia, pleaded and so argued by Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the fact that all the claim petitions were consolidated and due to confusion, the appellants could not be examined as witnesses. It was thought by them that other claimants would come in the witness box and they would depose regarding the age and income of the deceased. There was absolutely no occasion for the appellants not to lead evidence that they were dependents being widow and father of the deceased and that he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. It was sought to be made out in the claim petition that the deceased was running his own factory at Rajpura. No reply to the application has been filed. During the course of arguments, the prayer contained in the application has not been opposed by the respondents. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds have been made out for permitting the appellants to lead additional evidence. It is possible that the lawyer conducting the matter was under a bonafide belief that it was not necessary to examine all the claimants and that one claimant may be in a position to depose in support of other claimants particularly when all the claim petitions had arisen from the same accident. That apart, a great injustice would occur if the appellants are not permitted to lead additional evidence as in the very nature of the case, the widow would normally be dependent of Murli Dhar deceased. Considering all the circumstances of this case, this Court allows the application for additional evidence filed on behalf of the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since it is only after the evidence is recorded that a finding with regard to dependency of the appellants as also the income and age of the deceased can be given, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the award, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal given in Claim petition No. 73 of 1992 (F.A.O. No. 1737 of 1994) and remand the case to M.A.C.T. with a direction to permit the appellants to lead additional evidence on the points referred to above and then to determine the compensation payable to the appellants.
4. Coming to F.A.O. No. 1738 of 1994, it is proved on the record that Wazir Chand Mehta who died in the accident was an Advocate practising at Hissar. Evidence has been led to show that he was a leading Advocate in the town. Besides having income of Rs. 6000/-7000 p.m., he was owning 41 acres of agricultural land which he was managing himself. In the claim petition that has been filed by two daughters who were concededly unmarried at that time, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 4000/- p.m. and by applying a multiplier of 10 worked out total compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 4,83,000/-.
5. Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that not only the income of the deceased has been worked out on the lower side but an amount of Rs. 3000/- has also been slashed wrongly out from the total income which is wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the view that there is some substance in the two fold contentions raised by Mr. Lakhanpal. It was pleaded and sought to be proved that deceased Wazir Chand was earning Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- p.m. and that he had an income of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.a. from the agricultural farm as well. It is true that by death of Wazir Chand, the income from the agricultural farm would not come to an end, but in view of the fact that he was managing the land himself and now for the proper management of the agricultural land, the dependents shall have to spend at least a sum of Rs. 1500/2000/- p.m. by employing a manager or the like, failing which the income from the agricultural farm would reduce considerably, a loss of Rs. 1500/- to 2000/- per month has also to added while working out dependency of the claimants. In the facts and, circumstances of this case, the dependency of the claimants, thus, comes to Rs. 8,000/- per month. A person who earns Rs. 8,000/- per month in view of this Court cannot spend as much as Rs. 3000/- for himself. With the prices of the essential commodities sky rocketing, it is difficult even to run the kitchen and to provide for other minimum/basic necessities of life with an amount of Rs. 6000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- at the most, therefore, could be set apart which Wazir Chand might have been spending upon himself and for buying law books so required for his profession. A multiplier of 10 as has been applied by the learned Tribunal, seems to be just and proper. The compensation if calculated as mentioned above, comes to Rs. 7,20,000/- Mr. Pradeep Bedi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, during the course of arguments had to concede that this would be a proper and fair compensation. Consequently, the appellants of F.A.O. No. 1739 of 1994, are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application. The appeal is thus, accordingly, allowed and the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. Coming now to F.A.O. No. 1736 of 1994, it is made out from the records of the case that the deceased Satish Kumar was a doctor and was in Government Service. He left behind a widow and two minor children a son and a daughter. It is proved on the records of the case that at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 5465/- per month. It has also come in evidence that he owned agricultural land from which he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per year. The Tribunal worked out the dependency at Rs. 3200/- p.m. after assessing the monthly income of Rs. 4805/- and by applying a multiplier of 13, granted a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/-. Apart from the above, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses by the Tribunal. As in the other F.A.Os. as also in this, Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that not only the dependency has been worked out on the lower side, but the deduction made from his income which the deceased might be spending upon himself, is also on the higher side. Multiplier of 13 is also on the lower side, whereas multiplier of 16 should have been applied by the Tribunal further contends the counsel. I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased, as mentioned above, was a doctor and his income would not have remained static for all times to come and, therefore, his future prospectus ought to have been taken into consideration. Even though, in this case as well, there will be no loss towards the agricultural income, yet the dependents of the deceased doctor shall have to employ a private person to look after the agricultural farm. Considering his present salary as also his income that might have increased as also that his dependents shall have to employ a person to look after the agricultural land, Rs. 6500/-per month would be the correct income of the deceased. From this an amount of Rs. 1500/- p.m. would be set apart that the doctor might be spending upon himself. The dependency in this case, thus, certainly comes to Rs. 5000/- p.m. There is some merit in the submission with regard to the multiplier. Multiplier of 14 would be just and proper in this case. The compensation if worked out in view of what has been stated above, comes to Rs. 8,40,000/- In this case as well, Mr. Pradeep Bedi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company had to concede that this compensation is just and proper. This appeal also succeeds. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to the compensation to the sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application till actual payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.