S.P Goyal, J.:— This Judgment will dispose of six appeals F.A.O Nos. 47, 48, 49, 85, 90 and 96 of 1975, as they arise out of the same judgment of the Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dated October 7, 1974.

2. A head on collision took place between car No. MRW 8029 and car No. DLF 5558 on the Grand Trunk road on December 28, 1964 at about 7-30 A.M which resulted in the death of Hari Singh driver, Ram Kumar T. Gupta and Smt. Amolak Devi and bodily injuries to Chman Lal, occupants of the first car. Three claim petitions were filed, one by the widow and the minor children of Ram Kumar deceased, second by Kesho Ram husband of Smt. Amolak Devi and the third by Chaman Lal. In the petition filed by the widow and the heirs of Ram Kumar it was alleged that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of car No. DLF 5558 by driver Kishore Kumar. A compensation of Rs. 17, 50, 000/- was, therefore, claimed against the owner and the National Insurance Company with whom the car was insured. In the other two petitions, it was alleged that the accident took place because of the negligence of the drivers of both the cars and as such both owners and the Insurance company were named as respondents. The claims were, however, contested only by the insurer of car No. DLF 5558 who controverted the allegations made by the claimants and pleaded that the mishap was the result of rash and negligent driving of car No. MRW 8029. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:—

1. Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of vehicle No. DLF 5558?

1-A. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the driver of car No. MRW 8029 was also negligent, if so, whether both the drivers of the two vehicles involved were negligent and with what effect?

2. What is the compensation due if any, to the claimants and from whom to who whom?

3. Whether in claim No. 56/65 any cause of action is disclosed against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and if not so, its effect?

3. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative and issues Nos. 1-A and 3 in the negative. Under issue No. 3, the heirs of Ram Kumar were awarded Rs. 800.000/- Kesho Ram Rs. 7, 000/- and Chaman Lal Rs. 1000/- as compensation and the owner and insurer of car No. DLF 5558 were held jointly and severally liable for the same. Both the parties have felt dissatisfied with the award resulting in the above noted six appeals, three by the claimants for the enhancement of the compensation awarded and three by the judgment debtors for setting aside the same.

4. On issues No. 1 and 1-A, the claimants examined Dr. Hans Raj A.W 3, Dharam Singh A.W 6 and Chaman Lal A.W 9 Dr. Hans Raj and Dharam Singh reached the spot soon after the accident. So none of them had actually witnessed as to how the accident took place. However, Dr. Hans Raj deposed that car No. DLF 5558 was running at a high speed when it by passed him. Chaman Lal A.W 9 was one of the occupants of car No. MRW 8029. He deposed that the car in which he was travelling from Delhi to Ambala was being driven on the left side of the road and it was the other car which was coming from the side of Ambala and running in the wrong lane which struck against their car. Kishore Kumar R.W 3 and Hans Raj R.W 4 examined by the other side put the blame on the driver of car No. MRW 8029 and deposed that it was being driven rashly and negligently which caused the accident. As both the parties had made self-serving statements the Tribunal did not place reliance on them and recorded the finding on the basis of circumstantial evidence as gathered from Exhibits, X-1 to X-4 taken at the spot soon after the accident. From Exhibit X-4 it is quite apparent that car No. DLF 5558 was in the wrong lane and its left front portion struck against the left front portion of the other car No. doubt, car No. MRW 8029 appears to to be in the middle of the road when the collision took place but that may, be as deposed to by Chaman Lal Driver, because its driver tried to avoid collision by taking a turn to the right. Moreover, the impact of the collision also must have pushed back and titled car No. MRW 8029 with the result that its rear portion went in the right lane. However%, the fact that car No. DLF 5558 was wholly in the wrong lane and being driven on the wrong side of the road had caused accident because it being a heavy vehicle was not likely to be pushed into the wrong lane by the impact of the collision nor was it so deposed by the occupant of that car or the other witnesses produced by the judgment debtors We, there fore find no scope to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on these issues and the same are accordingly confirmed.

5. The next issue relates the quantum of compensation and this was in fact, the issue which was seriously contested between the parties. Admittedly, deceased Ram kumar was deriving income at the rate of his death from two sources, namely, the salary as Director of the three companies and the profit income from Messra Bombay Forge, a Hindu undivided family concern. His salary income was fixed at Rs. 2,500/- per month by the Tribunal which is obviously wrong. According to the learned counsel for the judgment debtors, his monthly income from salary was Rs. 2,300/- per month, Rs. 1,500/- as Director of K.T Steel and K.T Rolling Mills respectively and Rs. 300/- from Messrs Khushi Ram Tara Chand as Manager. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, his montly income was Rs. 3,300/- because his salary as Director of K.T Steels is stated to be Rs. 2,500/- per month instead of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The only documentary proof in support of his salary as Director of K.T Steels produced at the trial was the assessment order, Exhibit C-5, Apart from that CCW. 8 Tarlochan Singh, secretary-Cm-Assistant Manager of K.T Steels Industries, deposed on the basis of the record which he had brought with him that the salary of the deceased had been raised from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- during the financial year 1964-1965. He further deposed that a resolution passed by the Board of Directors was duly recorded in the minute book of the company to this effect. Although the records of the company were examined by the counsel for the insurer for two days but nothing was brought on the record to show that this part of the statement of the witness was incorrect. In spite of all that we asked the learned counsel for the claimants to produce the original minute book to satisfy about the genuineness of that resolution. The register was duly produced and on inspection we find no reason to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of the resolution. There being no dispute regarding the other two items, the income of the deceased from the salary has been proved to be Rs. 3,300/- per month and the finding of the tribunal in this regard is according modified.

6. As regards the income from Messrs Bombay Forge, the evidence again consists of income-tax return, assessment order and the statement of CCW 8. Accounts of this firm were also thoroughly checked and inspected by the learned counsel for the insurer. This firm was securing work orders and supplying goods after getting them manufactured from various manufactures. At one time during the course of the argument, we doubted the genuineness of this concern and were of the view that this firm had been set up only to divert profits of Messrs K.T Steels so as to escape income-tax liability. So we directed the learned counsel for the claimants to produce some record which could show the works secured and executed by this concern. The claimants did not produce any such record. However, now we are of the view that this aspect has no bearing so far as the present dispute is concerned because even if this firm earned profits by way of some camouflage, the same were available to the dependants of the deceased for their use as income from Messrs Bombay Forge and they have been deprived of this income. The learned, counsel for the judgment-debtors, however, urged that whole of this amount cannot be said to be a loss to the family and only theshare of the deceased out of this income can at best be said to be its loss. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the concern was though of Hindu undivided family yet it was entirely run by the deceased and after his death had to be closed. In such a situation the entire amount would be a loss to the family and for this proposition he relied on Amthiben Mangal Lal v. Superintending Geophysicist O.N.G.C . 1976 A.C.J 72. and Cookson v. Knowles. . 1978 A.C.J 209. No decision to the contrary was cited by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors. The Hindu undivided family which owned this concern consisted of the deceased, his wife and the minor children of very tender age. It is, therefore, apparent that it was the deceased who was solely responsible for the running of this concern and on his death it had to be closed down. In these circumstances the whole of the income of this concern would be a loss of the family and has to be taken into consideration while assessing the annual loss to the dependants.

7. The total income of the assessee from two sources was Rs. 59,00/- per annum (Rs. 39, 600/- plus Rs. 19, 412/-) as is evident from the assessment order Exhibit C-6. The deceased was paying Rs. 3,117/- on account of Insurance Premium and Rs. 2000/- for charitable institutions. After deducting this amount his income from salary comes roughly to Rs. 34, 5000/- and from Messrs Bombay Forge Rs. 19,412/- annum. On both these items about Rs. 10, 000/- were liable to be paid as income tax. So the net annual income of the deceased was roughly Rs. 45, 000/-.

8. The deceased was a very successful and promising business man and looking after various concerns. He was living jointly with his father in a house owned by a private limited company, Messrs K.T Steels for which he was not paying any rent. Apart from the company car, he was maintaining his own car also. The fact that no bank account showing any saving by him has been proved shows that he scents a good deal of his income on his own self because of his multifarious business activities. In these circumstances out of the annual income of Rs. 45,000/- loss to the dependants is assessed at Rs. 25,000/- as per annum. As deposed to by Mr. Ram Parshad CCW 4, once Sheriff of Bombay and Chairman of Iron and Steel Hardware Marchant Association Bombay, and other respectable witnesses, the deceased was a very promising, pushing and intelligent business man. His life was cut short at its prime at the age of 29 while his grand parents are still alive. On there facts, in our view, the multiplier of 16 would not be excessive for determining just and proper compensation for his dependants. There is no dearth of of precedents also in support of the use of multiplier of 16 in the case of a person dying below 30 years of age. In Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh . 1979 A.C.J 496., the Supreme Court employed a multiplier of 20 to determine the compensation where the deceased was around 30 years of age. In a Full Bench decision of his Court of Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur . 1980 82 PLR 357., again a multiplier of 6 was used to determine the compensation where the deceased was 23 years old. Similarly in Kasturha Sewa Mandir Rajpura Township, district Patiala v. Mat. Bachan Kaur . 1979 81 PLR 1. the compensation was arrived at by employing a multiplier of 16 where the deceased was 30 years old at the time of his death. So we also allow 16 years purchase value to the dependants age thus calculated the compensation would come to rupees four lacs.

9. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors however, urged that the deceased has left shares worth Rs. more than 3 lacs and other landed property which should be taken into account while determining a suitable multiplier. It was also urged that atfer the death of Ram Kumar his widow has been appointed as the Director in Messrs K.T Steels on a monthly payment of Rs. 1,000/- and the amount of compensation was, therefore liable to be reduced to that extent. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel on either count. No precedent has been brought to our notice wherein it might have been held that the capital assets of the deceased inherited by his heirs are to be taken into account while determining a suitable multiplier. It is only that benefit which accrues to the heirs due to the death of the persons concern which is to be so taken into account. The landed property and the other capital assets would otherwise have come in the hands of the heirs even in the case of his natural death and this is not a benefit which has accured to them because of his untimely death. Again the gainful employment of the wife after the death of her husband is never considered to be a benefit accuring to her because of such death. The fact that she has been appointed a Director of that very company of which her husband was the Director in his life time, in our view, is of no consequence a suit is not a benefit flowing from the death of her husband and she would be getting remuneration for the services rendered by her.

10. As regards the other four appeals-two by the claimants and two by the judgment-debtors, nothing substantial was urged by either side which could justify interference with the award made by the Tribunal. Kesho Ram was awarded Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for the the death of his wife who was 62 years of age at the time of her death. The compensation awarded is somewhat excessive but the amount being nominal, no interference is called for by this court in appeal. So far as Chaman Lal is concerned he was awarded Rs. 13,000/- for the multiple injuries received by him and the medical expense incurred. This amount cannot be said to be excessive or inadequate so as to call for any interference by this Court.

11. When the award was made there is no provision for allowing interest to the claimants on the compensation allowed. Because of the amendment of the law since then it is now now permissible to allow interest to the claimants from the date of the filing claim. To this extent, therefore, the appeals of all the claimants have to be allowed.

12. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the judgment-debtors in F.A.O 47 of 1975 is allowed to the extent that the compensation awarded to the heirs of Ram Kumar is reduced from Rs. 8 lacs to Rs. 4 lacs and the appeal filed by Smt. Sarla Gupta and others, F.A.O No. 96 of 1975 is dismissed except to the extent that they are allowed interest on the compensation amount of Rs. 4 lacs from the date of the filing of the claim at the rate of 10 percent per annum till the date of its payment. The appeals filed by against two other claimants are also dismissed except that the claimants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the compensation allowed from the date of the filing of the claims till its payment. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are leftt to bear their own costs.

R.M.S

Order accordingly.