Usha Mehra ( 1 ) BIMLA Devi and Ors. have filed an appeal undersection 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter called the Act) againstthe judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the M. A. C. T.) dated 28-2-78. In short the facts of the case are that Pt. Beharilal died in motor car accident on 14-6-70 at about 7. 00 a. m. The deceasedwas crossing Mehrauli Road on foot on the pedestrian crossing from Raj Nagar side towards South Extension. At that time his son was also accompanying him at some distance. The offending Car No. DLR-7284driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by Bhim Sen, respondent No. 2,came at a very fast speed from Yusuf Sarai and hit the deceased with thefront portion as a result of which he was thrown away and sustained fatalinjuries. At that juncture there was a Red signal, but the respondent No. 2did not care to stop on the Red signal, instead entered the crossing withoutcaring for the safety of the persons. He did not observe proper look outnor blew horn and thus caused the death of Pt. Behari Lal. Deceasedbelonged to Village Katiyal, District Ludhiana, Punjab, and had come todelhi to see his relations. ( 2 ) THE M. A. C. T. after reccording the evidence of the parties assessedthe dependency income of the petitioners at Rs. 200. 00 per month and appliedthe multiplier of five years, thereafter deducted 15% on account of lump sumpayment and uncertainties of life and awarded a sum of Rs. 10. 200. 00. ( 3 ) IT is against this impugned award that the present appeal has beenfiled. Sakirti Devi and Bhim Sen, respondents 1 and 2 also filed appeal andcross objections, both of appealwhich were dismissed. Sakirti Devi, Respondent No. 1, is admittedly the owner of the offending car and Bhim Sen, respondent No. 2. was employed by her as the driver. So far as the accidentwith offending car is concerned that has been proved beyond doubt. Thestory set up by respondent No. 1 that the offending car was in the garrageat the relevant time is beyond the pleading and therefore, the Trial Courtrightly did not rely on the same. In the written statement it was not deniedthat respondent No. 2, Bhim Sen, was driving this car when the accidenttook place. Thestory set up by respondent No. 1 that the offending car was in the garrageat the relevant time is beyond the pleading and therefore, the Trial Courtrightly did not rely on the same. In the written statement it was not deniedthat respondent No. 2, Bhim Sen, was driving this car when the accidenttook place. Even otherwise the driver of the car has not appeared in thewitness box, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn. Had he appearedit would have been proved that at the time of accident he was driving thiscar which hit the deceased. On the other hand, by an overwhelmingevidence, the petitioners have been able to prove that it was the offendingcar belonging to Sakirti Devi, driven by Bhim Sen, which hit the deceasedand ultimately caused his death. The eye witness Naresh Kumar, son of thedeceased, appearing as PW-11, testified that he was accompanying his fatherwhen this accident took place. Naresh Kumar had not been subjected tocross examination. His testimony in fact has remained unrebutted onrecord. Similarly the statement of Gurdev Singh, PW-3, who is not relatedto the deceased and his family, in fact an independent witness, had alsowitnessed this accident. He has in fact explicitly and vivedly described theaccident. According to him there was Red signal at that time, no othervehicle was coming, but the driver of the offending car violated the rules andcame there. After the accident he applied the brake and slowed down thecar for a short while but thereafter speeded away. PW-3 infact noted downthe car number. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothinghas been elicited which could contradict his testimony. Kishan Lal Sehgal,pw-2. is another eye witness of the accident. He corroborates the statement of Gurdev Singh in material particulars as to how the accident tookplace. The offending car after hitting the deceased slowed down for abit and thereafter speeded away. He also testified that there was a Redsignal when the offending car came from Mehrauli side crossing the same. His statement was recorded by the police. Their statements appear to betruthful and inspire confidence, coupled with their statements, the statement of Naresh Kumar, PW-11, who was with his father at the relevanttime, to my mind, the M. A. C. T. rightly came to the conclusion that it isthe offending car in question, driven by Bhim Sen, respondent No. 2,driven rashly and very negligently which caused this accident. ( 4 ) AS regards the dependency income, the M. A. C. T. has not dealtwith the income of the deceased, thought Jagir Singh, PW-6, Bimla Devipw-10, as well as Naresh Kumar PW-11, did state about monthly income ofthe deceased which according to them was between Rs. 1. 400. 00 to Rs. 1,500. 00per month. However, the M. A. C. T without discussing his monthly incomecame to the conclusion that just and reasonable monthly dependency of thepetitioners to be Rs. 200. 00. How he arrived at this figure cannot be inferredfrom the record ? Moreover, the M. A. C. T. fell in grave error in observingthat the deceased must be spending extravagantly upon himself. Theseobservations are based on no material on record. ( 5 ) IT is infact nobody s case that the deceased with six minorchildren and a wife was spending extravagently on himself. Rather thewidow Bimla Devi, appearing as PW-10 and her son Naresh Kumar, PW-11,have categorically stated that the deceased was spending his entire earnidgon the household expenses. He had three minor daughters and three sonsbeside wife. Three of his daughters, respondents No. 4,5 and 6 were married. One of his sun was born blind and completely dependent on him. Threedaughters of the deceased were in the age group of 8 to 12 years when hedied and his two sons were about 14 years of age. Naresh Kumar, PW-11,was 18 years old at the time of his father s death. Therefore, there was noquestion of his being extravagent. Bimla Devi testified that the deceasedused to give his entire earning to her. In this view of the matter, them. A. C. T. was not justified in assessing the dependency income at Rs. 200. 00per month He in fact fell in grave error in arriving at this conclusion. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY the M. A. C. T. erroneously concluded that the age of thedeceased was 58 years. Bimla Devi, (PW-10), Naresh Kumar (PW-11),hans Raj (PW-8), Surinder (PW-9) all of them were close to Pt. Beharilal, they have stated that he was between the age of 47 to 48 years at thetime of his death. But- without any reason the M. A. C. T. discarded theirstatements and relied on the inquest report which no one proved on therecord. Dr. Beharilal, they have stated that he was between the age of 47 to 48 years at thetime of his death. But- without any reason the M. A. C. T. discarded theirstatements and relied on the inquest report which no one proved on therecord. Dr. Ghosh, PW-5, had stated that the age of deceased as 58 yearsgiven by him in his report was based on the inquest report furnished by thepolice. In fact Dr. Ghosh was only to report about the injuries on thebody of the deceased. . He mentioned the age of the deceased on theinformation fed by the police. Where from police got the age of the deceased has not been proved. To my mind. the M. A. C. T. could not haverelied on the age mentioned in the postmortem report, particularly in viewof the unrebutted and uncontroverted statements of Smt. Bimla Devi, Nareshkumar and others. The M. A. C. T. conclusion regarding the age of thedeceased is baseless. Similarly his finding regarding the income of thedeceased. On the basis of the statements of PW-10 and PW-11, whichstatements were not suejected to cross examination, the M. A. C. T. ought tohave held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,400. 00. ( 7 ) NOW taking the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,400. 00 permonth and deducting 1/3id on account of his personal expenses, the depen-dency income of the petitioners would come to Rs. 934. 00 (Rs. l,400. 00 lessrs. 466-Rs. 934. 00 ). From the evidence discussed above it can safely be heldthat the deceased was about 48 years old at the time of his death. Takinginto consideration the longivity in the family of the deceased which has beenproved by Smt. Bimla Devi, PW-10, the multiplier of 10 years will meet theend of justice. ( 8 ) IN order to arrive at the compensation the annual dependencyincome of the petitioners would come to Rs. 11,208. 00 (i. e. Rs 934. 00 x 12 ). Applying the multiplier of 10 years the total compensation would come tors. 1,12. 080. 00 (Rs. 11,208 x 10 ). Mr. Gambhir, Counsel for the respondentcontended that deduction @ 15% on account of lump sum payment anduncertainties of life should be allowed. 11,208. 00 (i. e. Rs 934. 00 x 12 ). Applying the multiplier of 10 years the total compensation would come tors. 1,12. 080. 00 (Rs. 11,208 x 10 ). Mr. Gambhir, Counsel for the respondentcontended that deduction @ 15% on account of lump sum payment anduncertainties of life should be allowed. I am afraid this argument does nothold good any more, because with the value of rupee dwindeling due to highrate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction for lump sumpayment or for uncertainties of life. Supreme Court has observed that thedelay in final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all otherclasses of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation and addedto that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupeesmakes the compensation demanded years ae. o less than quarter of its valuewhen it is received after such a long time. In this case the petition was filedin 1970 and hopefully the case is now being decided in March. 1993. Therefore, there is no juftification of any deduction on account of lump sumpayment or uncertainties of life. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above the award of the M. A. C. T. ismodified and it is ordered that the petitioner shall he entitled to recover fromrespondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 1,12. 080. 00 withinterest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realisation.