J.R. Goyal, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimants for enhancement of the compensation against the award dated 15.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in MAC Case No. 43/1992.
2. In short the facts of the case are that oh 24.8.1991 at 8.30 p.m. deceased Shankar Lal Nagar was travelling along with other persons in jeep bearing Registration No. RST 7354 from Beawar to Ajmer. Due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver Ugam Singh, it dashed against the stationary truck bearing registration No. RNW 7475, which was parked on the roadside near Kesarpura (Police Station Mangliawas), as a result thereof Shankar Lai and two others died on the spot. Learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver Ugam Singh, respondent No. 1, and awarded total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- including Rs. 25,000/- on the head of dependency. Aggrieved by this award, dependents of deceased Shankar Lal filed this appeal.
3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for appellants that Shankar Lal was a retired Principal, getting pension Rs. 2,000/- per month and also getting Rs. 1,000/- per month from Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti. It was further contended that learned Tribunal, while evaluating the compensation, has taken into consideration the amount of family pension being received by Smt. Sushila Nagar, widow of the deceased, which is against the settled proposition of law. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on the judgments rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjit Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2001 (1) ACJ 211, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Bala and Ors. (DB) III (2004) ACC 721 : 2005 ACJ 619. It was also contended that at the time of death, age of Shankar Lal was about 60 years, which is evident from his pension papers, but the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation considering his age as 65 years. It has also been contended that the learned Tribunal has determined total amount of dependency as Rs. 25,000/- in lumpsum, whereas it ought to have determined on the principle of multiplier.
5. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company respondent No. 3, supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation was awarded after due appreciation of the evidence and the same does not require any interference.
6. It is evident from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal kept in view the fact that Smt. Sushila Nagar, widow of the deceased, was getting Rs. 1,819/- as family pension and, therefore, only Rs. 500/- per month has been assessed as loss of income. In Amarjit Kaur's case (supra) it has been held that family pension cannot be deducted while assessing compensation. Same view has been taken by the Division Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Bala (supra) relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan : [2002]3SCR1176 , wherein it has been observed thus:
Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any co-relation with an amount Learned by an individual. Principle of loss and pain has to be on the same line within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law. The Court has further referred to receipts of provident fund which is a deferred payment out of contribution made by an employee during tenure of his service. Such an amount is payable irrespective of the accidental death of the employee. The same is the position relating to the family pension. There is no co-relation between the compensation payable on account of accidental death and the amounts receivable irrespective of such accidental death which otherwise in the normal course one would be entitled to receive.
7. Thus in view of the aforesaid judgments it is clear that family pension cannot be deducted while assessing compensation.
8. It is settled position of law that generally lumpsum amount should not be granted as compensation, instead multiplier method must be adopted for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation since it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country, as also held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr. 2005 (1) TAC 609.
9. So far age of deceased Shankar Lal is concerned, according to his pension papers his date of birth is 7.4.1931. The accident took place on 24.8.1991. Thus at the time of death, his age appears to be more than 60 years. Considering the second schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as guideline, in the facts and circumstances of this case, multiplier of 5 appears to be appropriate.
10. Learned Tribunal assessed income of deceased Shankar Lal at Rs. 3,000/- per month. After usual one-third deduction for personal expenses from the monthly income, dependency can be assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and thus yearly dependency comes to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-. Applying multiplier of 5, total dependency comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-.
11. Rest of the award in my opinion does not call for any interference.
12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of learned Tribunal is modified. Total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 45,000/- to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- = Rs. 1,40,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment, which shall be deposited in FDR in favour of Smt. Sushila Nagar, widow of the deceased, for a period of one year.