Full Judgment
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.
1. Claimant Kamla Devi has directed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim No. 133 of 1980.
2. Deceased Radhey Shyam was 2472 years of age at the time of the unfortunate accident. He was employed in the Police Department on the post of constable and was drawing Rs. 380/- per month at the relevant time. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 20, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been calculated as the pecuniary loss to the family. To this amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been added for the loss of consortium.
3. Mr. Mathur vehemently contends that the Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate amount in this case and that the loss of dependency ought to have been calculated at much higher figure considering the present income of the deceased as Rs. 760/-. Mr. Lodha on the other hand supports the award.
4. I have given in the matter my thoughtful consideration. Radhey Shyam was employed in the Police Department and thus, he was on the stable job. It cannot be denied that he would have got promotions in future and his salary would have been much more than that was in 1980. Keeping in view the principle laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the present income of the deceased was to be doubled in order to estimate the loss of dependency. On doubling the amount, the monthly income comes to Rs. 760/-. It has come in the statement of Kamla Devi that her husband used to send Rs. 300/- to her and spend only Rs. 80/- on himself as he was not having any vice. Normally 1/3rd amount of the income is considered to be the personal expenditure of the deceased. In this case, the loss of dependency thus comes to be Rs. 500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 6,000/- per annum. Looking to the young age of the deceased, it is appropriate to adopt the multiplier of '16'. The amount works out to be Rs. 96,000/-.
5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant for loss of consortium. It has been the practice of this Court to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium where the death of the spouse occurs in young age. It is reasonable to award Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium. Thus, just compensation works out to be Rs. 1,11,000/-.
6. The observation of the learned Judge of the Tribunal that the claimant was likely to remarry is not based on any evidence. It was not asked in the cross-examination of the claimant that she was likely to remarry. In any case, on the possibility of remarriage, the amount could not be reduced.
7. Consequently, this appeal succeeds. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim application to the date of payment, as directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall also be deposited by the appellant in three fixed deposit accounts in equal sum for a period of 6 years, 9 years and 12 years.