A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Special Appeal No. 40 of 1997 has been filed by R.S.R.T.C. questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183/1995. Special Appeal No. 8 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183 of 1995 whereby the Award dated 18.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur has been reduced from Rs. 18,15,000/- to Rs. 14,55,000/-.
3. Mr. Sangeet Lodha, the learned Counsel appearing for the RSRTC submitted that the learned Single Judge has arrived at the finding that the dependency ought to have been worked out by the Tribunal after deducting from the consolidated pay, the amount of perks as also the income tax which the deceased would have paid. He was further submitted that according to the learned Single Judge, the possible income tax which would have been paid, ought to have been deducted from the pay of Rs. 10,000/- which was worked out by the Tribunal and after assessing the income tax as Rs. 2,000/-, the dependency of the deceased was assessed by the learned Single Judge as Rs. 7,500/- per month and applying the multiplier of 16, compensation was computed as Rs. 14,40,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of consortium was maintained by the learned Single Judge. He has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 in place of 15. According to Mr. Lodha, if the dependency of the claimants is assessed by applying the multiplier of 15 then the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,90,000/-.
4. Mr.Lodha has further contended that since the monthly dependency of the claimants is assessed only as Rs. 5,500/- per month and if the amount of Rs. 5.5 lakhs is deposited in Bank in Fixed Deposit then the aforesaid amount will take care of the monthly dependency of the claimants which is assessed as Rs. 5,500/- per month and, therefore, while computing the compensation, the learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the record while so considering all these important aspects of the matter. He has also contended that the direction given by the learned Tribunal with regard to interest is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly aopplied the multiplier of 16 whereas considering the young age of the deceased, it was a fit case in which the multiplier of 18 should have been adopted as per the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court.
6. He has further contended that there were very bright chances of future promotions and increase in remuneration which could have gone even double of the remuneration which he was getting at the time of accident and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration, which has also resulted into gross injustice with the claimants and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in reducing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7. According to the learned Counsel, the claimants are also entitled to receive compensation on account of loss of love and affection. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has assessed the dependency at Rs. 7,500/- per month only, which is not in accordance with the record and is grossly inadequate. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas I : AIR1994SC1631 , the learned Counsel submitted that where the deceased is permanently employed and is likely to get higher post and promotions in future, the income should be doubled while assessing the dependency and thereafter, proper multiplier should be applied. According to the learned Counsel, in the present case, the principles laid down in the above judgment have not been properly followed, as a result of which, the claimants have been deprived of their legitimate claims which require to be suitably raised. It was submited that the learned single Judge has erred in reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs. 14,55,000/-.
8. We have perused the pleadings, the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As rightly pointed out by the teamed Counsel for the claimants in Appeal No. 8 of 1997, that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge both have not taken into account the future prospects of the deceased. The deceased had a stable job. He was employed in M/s. Pesticides India Limited on a very key post of Financial Adviser and was getting salary of Rs. 14,018.50P. The record shows that he was a person of outstanding academic career with highly promising future and there were clear chances of increase in his remuneration in the coming years, However, he died at the age of 32 years leaving behind the claimants. In our opinion, if a person with such a outstanding academic career met with such a tragic accident, his legal heirs should have been granted proper and sufficient compensation. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in reducing compensation from Rs. 18,15,000/- to Rs. 14,55,000/-. If future prospects and advancement of life and career are taken into account, certainly more compensation should be payable to the claimants even if existing multiplicant and multiplier are taken into account. Looking into the income which deceased was earning, status of life enjoyed by the him and the future prospects and career of the deceased, we feel ourselves justified in setting aside the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge and in restoring the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur at Rs. 18,55,000/-.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has argued that accident was not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus but is occurred on account of the negligence on the side of the deceased. We are unable to accept this contention. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge both considered entire aspect of this matter and have recorded a finding of fact which in our opinion is not liable to be interfered with at this stage.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 8 of 1997 is allowed and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 40 of 1997 is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the judgment and award dated 18.1.1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur is restored.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.