ORDER
SHETHNA, J.
(1). This Special Appeal is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'}, against the judgment and order dated 6th .July, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 101/93, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal and confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner,
(2). The claim petition was filed by the widow of deceased Vijay Kumar, who died at the young age of 25 in a road accident on 25.4.89. He was hit by a Bus belonging to the Corporation. He suffered mental agony for 4 days as he died on 28.4.89, due to the injuries received by him, leaving behind him his young widow in her 20 and two sons aged 3 years and eight months only and a widow mother aged 50 years.
(3), The claimants claimed before the Tribunal that the deceased Vijay Kumar was earning Rs. 1800/-per month and he used to spen Rs. 1200/- towards them. Though there is a direct evidence on this point of the claim, which was not controverted in the cross- examination, still, for the reasons best known in the Tribunal, Tribunal has come to the conclusion that income of the deceased Vijay Kumar must be Rs. 1500/- per month, out of which he must be spending Rs. 10007- for his dependents and Rs, 500/-for himself. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that if Vijay Kumar had not met with fatal accident, then he would have lived at least upto the age of 70, therefore, applying multiplier of 40, the Tribunal calculated Rs. 4, 80,000/- by way of loss of income. Surprisingly, the Tribunal deducted l/5th from that amount Rs. 4,80,000/- and by a wrong calculation, held that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 3,94,007- (instead of Rs. 3,84,000/-). In addition to it, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5, 000/- as consortium andRs, 5, 000/- by way of medical expenses and Rs, 400/- as damages to the cycle of the deceased. Thus, in all the award of Rs. 4,04,400.- was passed. The correct amount should have been Rs. 3,94,4007-.
(4). Against the said award, the Corporation preferred Miscellaneous Appeal which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence this Special Appeal.
(5). Learned counsel Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in applying 40 multiplier. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 40 which is against all the Supreme Court judgments. According to him, maximum multiplier of 18 should have been applied by the Tribunal. We fully agree with this submission of Mr. Lodha that the learned Tribunal was wholly wrong in applying multiplier of 40. As per catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal could have applied multiplier of 18 and not of 40.
(6). If that was the only point, then perhaps, we would have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal, but having carefully considered the entire claim of the claimants on the point of income of the deceased and other relevant material on record, we are of the opinion that the total amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant or on a very higher side which calls for any interference by this Court and in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal.
(7). It may be stated that the deceased Vijay Kumar was only 25 years of age at the time of accident. He was maintaining his old widow mother, young wife and two minor sons, aged 3 years and eight months respectively. Thus, in all, he was maintaining 5 persons including himself. When a person is having a Paan shop, then one can reasonably infer that his monthly income would be at least Rs. 1,800/-. When there was a specific evidence of the claimant that at the time of accident in 1989, the income of the deceased was Rs. 1800/-, then there was no reason for the Tribunal to slice it down to Rs. 1500/- per month. Evidence of the claimants regarding income of the deceased remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Having considered Rs. 15007- as monthly income, the Tribunal deducted Rs. 500/- for his use and fixed the dependency value of Rs. 10007- per month and applying multiplier of 40, it came to the conclu-sion that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 4,80,000/- by way of loss of income. How- ever, the Tribunal has completely over looked future rise in Income of the deceased. When a person in a young age of 25 was earning Rs. 1800/-, then, after few years, he would have at least earned double amount than what he was earning at the time of accident.
(8). Thus, when there is a specific evidence of the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1800/- at the time of accident in 1989, then we can safely take income of deceased at Rs. 3600/- per month. Deducting 173rd from that amount, it would come to Rs.24007-. Thus, net income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 24007- per month, which would come to Rs. 28,8007- per annum. Applying multiplier of even 15, it would come to Rs. 4,20,000/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 3,94,400/-, which was a clerical mistake. It should be Rs. 3,84,400/-.
(9), While, considering the mental agony suffered by the deceased for 4 days from 25.4.89 to 29.4.89 and other medical expenses and, consortium etc., we are of the opinion that the over all total amount of Rs. 8,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on a higher side. When the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with such award in miscellaneous appeal, then we will not interfere with such orders in this Special Appeal.
(10). In view of the above, we find no substance in this Special Appeal. Accordingly it fails and is dismissed.
(11). Since the Special Appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay petition stands dismissed automatically and the interim relief, if any, granted earlier on stay petition, stands vacated.