Full Judgment
J.C. Verma, J.
1. Late Shanker, husband of the appellant-claimant Gumani died in accident on 29.9.1992 when he was hit by a truck No. RRB 9921. He was aged 26 years and was an employee in the Police Department. His monthly income at the time of accident was Rs. 2,240. The owner and the driver did not file any reply and their evidence was closed. Issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect whether the accident was caused by the offending truck by rash and negligent driving and it was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. On issue No. 2, it was found by the trial court that the truck was being driven with the permission of the owner of the truck. On the quantum of compensation on issue No. 4, it was found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,240 and in addition to the above yearly bonus to the extent of Rs. 1,250 was being paid to the deceased. It was further found that he would have got double of the emoluments on the date of retirement, i.e., Rs. 4,480 and, therefore, the average income of the deceased was calculated at Rs. 3,360 p.m. and after deducting one-third of the pay for the personal expenses of the deceased, dependency was calculated at Rs. 2,240 p.m. A multiplier of 10 was applied. Total loss of income was assessed at Rs. 2,68,800. Another amount of Rs. 6,200 was awarded towards loss of love and affection. It was further found that the claimant Nos. 7 and 8 the major brothers of the deceased were not entitled to any compensation. Total amount of Rs. 2,75,000 was awarded.
2. Claim application was filed by the widow aged 28 years, one minor daughter aged 8-10 years, two minor sons aged 6 and 7 years and parents of the deceased along with brothers. The brothers were held to be not entitled to compensation.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the multiplier has not been applied correctly in accordance with law and applying of multiplier of 10 is too less. Apart from above, it was stated that the claimant wife was entitled to consortium compensation and remaining claimants, i.e., minor sons, daughters and the parents were entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection. Awarding of a total amount of Rs. 6,200 towards love and affection for all the claimants is too less was argued.
4. There is merit in the submission of the petitioner. The average monthly income had been assessed as Rs. 3,360 and after deducting one-third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of Rs. 2,240 p.m. as calculated by the Tribunal is justified. Even as per latest amendment in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the minimum multiplier which is to be awarded to the claimant is 18. In addition to above, the wife is entitled towards loss of consortium an amount of Rs. 15,000. The loss towards love and affection is increased to Rs. 10,000 each for mother and father and similarly, the minimum which should be awarded for love and affection to all three minor children should not be less than Rs. 10,000 each.
5. The children, ageing from 3 years to 10 years have lost their father. The care and love apart from bringing up by the father would be missed by the children for whole of their life. Even though the mother remarries at any time, it cannot be ruled out that the children would not get the same love of the father and this vacuum shall always remain in their lives. The old parents had lost their loving young child. The shock is unbearable for them. The minimum compensation for loss of love and affection, care and also to bear the shock in regard to the parents cannot be less than Rs. 10,000.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,240 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,83,840 + Rs. 50,000 towards love and affection for three children and parents at the rate of Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium, total Rs. 5,48,840. The award is enhanced from Rs. 2,75,000 to Rs. 5,48,840. The interest shall be payable as per the holding of the trial court.
7. The appeal is allowed as per above discussion. No order as to costs. Record of the court below be sent back as per rules.