Kuldip Singh, J.— Special leave granted.
2. Padmakar More was going on a bicycle on September 9, 1978 when he was knocked down by a bus owned by the respondent-corporation. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Narayan, father of Padmakar, Prerna his widow and Shweta a minor daughter moved a petition before the First Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Indore claiming Rs 1,50,000 as compensation. The tribunal by its award dated April 27, 1982 allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of Rs 26,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the application. The tribunal further directed the said amount to be apportioned as Rs 12,000, Rs 10,000 and Rs 4000 amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively. The tribunal further directed that the share of the minor daughter be deposited in the State Bank of India, Indore in reinvestment scheme, which shall be payable to her on attaining majority. The tribunal based its findings on the following reasoning:
“In view of foregoing discussion my finding is that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the motor bus by the N.A No. 2 and as a result of the said accident Padmakar sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them on the spot. Issue No. 3 — Date of birth of Padmakar as per record of the Hukum Chand Mills is June 16, 1952. He was thus 26 years of age on the date of the accident. According to pay-sheet of the Hukum Chand Mills for August 1978 Padmakar was given Rs 411.70 paise as gross salary excluding the deduction on account of advances and Rs 27 on account of canteen and insurance. After deduction of the amount of canteen and insurance the net amount of salary comes to Rs 384.70 paise. It appears that Padmakar was a drunkard. Naturally he might be spending more amount on himself than on his family. The dependency may be taken Rs 150 per month. Padmakar was young man of 26 years. 17 years multiplier would be just and proper in this case. Thus the gross compensation comes to Rs 30,600. Out of this 15 per cent are deducted on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus the net compensation comes to Rs 26,000. I have not taken into consideration the future increment of Padmakar and therefore, the deduction on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life should have been less than 15 per cent. However, I have deducted 15 per cent keeping in view that the widow of Padmakar is young lady of about 21 years and there is more chance of her re-marriage. Out of Rs 26,000, Rs 4000 are apportioned to the share of old father Narayan of Padmakar. Rs 10,000 to the share of minor daughter of Padmakar and Rs 12,000 to the share of widow of Padmakar.”
3. The claimants went in appeal against the award of the tribunal. The Corporation also filed an appeal against the judgment of the tribunal. By a common judgment dated October 9, 1984 the High Court dismissed both the appeals. The High Court, however, enhanced the interest awarded to the claimants from 6 per cent to 9 per cent. This appeal is by the widow and the minor daughter for enhancement of compensation. Narayan, father of the deceased has also been impleaded as pro forma respondent.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that deceased Padmakar was 26 years of age on the date of the accident. It is also not disputed that after deductions his pay packet used to be Rs 384.70 There was no evidence before the tribunal to show that the deceased Padmakar was addicted to drinking. The tribunal fell into patent error in fixing the dependency of the claimants on the deceased Padmakar to the extent of Rs 150 per month on the ground that Padmakar was a drunkard and as such was spending more amount on himself than on his family. The High Court on this aspect held as under:
“There is no evidence to indicate that the deceased was a drunkard or that even at the time of the accident he was in a drunken state and that it is on that account that of his own he fell down on the ground on the road and thus sustained the injuries which resulted in his death.”
5. We are of the view that from the evidence on the record it can safely be concluded that the deceased was spending Rs 300 per month on his family and running the household. We set aside the finding of the trial court as upheld by the High Court on this issue. We are further of the view that the tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of seventeen in this case. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death. The cause-title of the special leave petition shows that Narayan the father of the deceased was aged about 70 years in 1985 when the special leave petition was filed. Longevity in the family can, therefore, be assumed. The tribunal did not give any allowance for the future increments and promotional chances of Padmakar. No compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper to allow 24 years multiplier. We, therefore, award Rs 86,000 as compensation to the three claimants. They shall also be entitled to interest at 12 per cent from the date of application before the tribunal. Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about 15 years of the accident, there is no question of making any deductions on any score. We further direct that the sum of Rs 86,000 shall be apportioned by paying Rs 40,000 to the minor daughter Shweta, Rs 30,000 to Prerna, widow of the deceased and Rs 16,000 to Narayan the father of the deceased. We further direct that the share of the minor daughter Shweta be deposited in the bank as per the directions of the tribunal. After deducting the amount, if any, already paid to any of the claimants the balance amount with interest shall be paid by the respondent-corporation to the claimants within two months from today. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify as Rs 5000 to be paid by the Corporation to Prerna, widow of the deceased. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.