S.D. Anand, J.
1. This is claimants' plea for enhancement of compensation. The claimants, in their capacity as legal representatives of deceased Harjinder Singh, had filed the plea for award of compensation in respect of the death of Harjinder Singh in the impugned accident on 27.9.1987. At that time, Harjinder Singh was proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No. PUI-7187 from his village towards Morinda on Kharar-Morinda road. He was in the area of village Sharuan when the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. PJG-1067, owned by Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, came from the opposite direction. It was driven by respondent No. 1 - Gurbachan Singh at that point of time at a rash speed and in a negligent manner. The offending vehicle came over to the wrong hand side of the road and hit the motor-cycle driven by Harjinder Singh who, along with the vehicle, was dragged by the bus to a distance of 50/60 feet. Harjinder Singh sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot itself. Appellant Jagdev Kaur is the wife of the deceased, appellant Vicky is a minor child of the deceased; while appellants Dilbagh Singh and Mohinder Kaur are parents of the deceased.
2. The Tribunal, on appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, awarded the compensation as under:
Jagdev Kaur Rs. 90,000Vicky (minor son) Rs. 27,000Dilbagh Singh & Mohinder Kaur Rs. 15,000 (each).
It was further ordered that any amount awarded under Section 92A (old) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be adjustable against that amount.
3. In order to quantify the compensation payable, the Tribunal assessed deceased's monthly income as Rs. 1,000. After deducting the amount which the deceased may have been spending on personal upkeep, the monthly dependency of the claimants was assessed to be Rs. 750. In view of the fact that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of his death, a multiplier of 16 was applied. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was awarded in favour of Jagdev Kaur, appellant for performance of last rites of the deceased.
4. In view of the fact that none turned up on behalf of the appellants, this Court has to find out the grievance from the grounds of appeal only. The averment, in the course thereof, is that the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at least Rs. 2,000; that a multiplier of 20 ought to have been applied and that interest ought to have been awarded with effect from the date of the application.
5. Insofar as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, the plea raised on behalf of the appellants would appear to be justified. As per the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of death. In that view of things, a multiplier of 18 would be applicable, in terms of the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. There is also force in the averment that interest (on the awarded amount) ought to have been granted with effect from the date of the application. There was no justification for the Tribunal to have ordered that interest would be payable with effect from the date of the award. The grant of that order was contrary to the law of the land. However, the appellants are not on a firmer footing on point of the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was a salesman in the Morinda Branch of Yamuna Syndicate. He was entitled to incentive on the sale of tractors. However, his income was fluctuating and not certain. During the period September, 1986 to September, 1987, he sold 48 tractors and got a sum of Rs. 12,062 as incentive. However, he did not receive any incentive during August 1987, September, 1987 and November, 1987. The Tribunal recorded appropriate reasoning in support of the finding that the deceased could not be said to be having a fixed income. It was also noticed that no deposit had been proved to have been made in any account. The inference drawn by the Tribunal was that if the deceased had indeed been earning the averred amount for a period of about four years, it would have been expected that there was a deposit in an account which (deposit) had neither been averred nor proved in this case. That part of the finding shall stand affirmed.
7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the FAO shall stand allowed in part. The claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 18,000 over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be shared equally by the appellants. The respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount from the date of petition till the payment thereof.