KRISHNA GUPTA v. LAL — 1995 DIGILAW 431 (DEL)

C. M. Nayar ( 1 class=pno> N> 1 ) THE present judgment will dispose of two First Appeals, being FAO No. 230/ 79 (Krishna Gupta and others v. Madan Lal and others) which is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and FAO No. 231/79 (Madan Lal and others v. Smt. Krishna Gupta and others) which is filed by the driver of the offending vehicle as well as by the owner and the insurance company. ( 2 ) THE facts briefly stated are that on August 26, 1974 the deceased Prem Chand Gupta was sitting in car No. DLJ 4598 and was going from Shakti Nagar towards village Pooth Khurd on G. T. Road. The car was being driven by respondent no. 3. The truck bearing No. DHG 1613 driven by respondent no. 1 was going ahead of the car in the same direction and the car, in fact, was following the truck. It is 5 alleged that at about 9. 10 P. M. the truck driver, respondent no. 1, without giving any signal or warning suddenly stopped the truck on the road and since the carwas also in speed the rear right portion of the truck and fnt left portion of the car collided. The impact took place with great force and all the occupants of the car were injured. The deceased Prem Chand Gupta and Purshotam Dass Gupta received fatal injuries and Kapur Chand Mittal, who was also travelling in the car, sustained grievous injuries. It is further alleged in the petition that the accident took place due to the composite negligence of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 and the said respondent no. 1 was mainly responsible for causing the accident. The deceased possessed good physique and was in the prime of his youth and if he had not died in the accident, he would have lived a long life as there is history of longevity of life in the family. Due to the sudden demise of Prem Chand Gupta, the family lost pecuniary benefits which they would have continued to receive for another 37 years. The appellants reasonably expected that support for such number of years, as the deceased was making available his entire earnings for the use of the family. Due to the sudden demise of Prem Chand Gupta, the family lost pecuniary benefits which they would have continued to receive for another 37 years. The appellants reasonably expected that support for such number of years, as the deceased was making available his entire earnings for the use of the family. The deceased was employed in Delhi Administration permanently as TGT teacher and he would have been awarded the selection grade in the year 1978. The post was pensionable and besides pension, the deceased would have earned atleast a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 to Rs. 1500. 00 by doing tuition work as he was an experienced teacher. The family suffered extreme mental pain and agony on coming to know about the sudden death of Prem Chand Gupta. Therefore, a petition for claim of compensation for a sum of Rs. five lakhs was filed before the Tribunal. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1,2 and 5 filed a common written statement and denied the averments made in the petition in general and have further pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car No. DLJ 4598 in which the deceased was travelling. Respondents 3 and 4 have also denied any rash and negligent driving of the car driver and emphatically averred that the accident took place due to sudden stoppage of truck which was going ahead of the car. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether Prem Chand Gupta sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DHG1613 on the part of the respondent no. 1 or rash and negligent driving of car No. DLJ 4598 on the part of the respondent no. 3? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? 4. Relief. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record held that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the truck driver as well as the car driver on account of whose rash and negligent driving the unfortunate accident took place. The liability, in the facts and circumstances of the case, between the truck driver and the car driver was apportioned in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. The liability, in the facts and circumstances of the case, between the truck driver and the car driver was apportioned in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. The appellants were held to be the legal heirs of the deceased and this issue was decided accordingly. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal next proceeded to dispose of issue no. 3. The deceased was working as a teacher in a Government Boys Higher Secondary School No. 3, Rup Nagar, Delhi, under Delhi Administration. The total emoluments at the time of his demise were Rs. 834. 45 per month. The deduction of 1/3rd was made and the dependency was fixed at Rs. 546. 00 per month or Rs. 6552. 00 per annum. The deceased was 38 years of age and considering the fact that the age of retirement is fixed at 58 years, the multiplier of 20 was used and the compensation in the figure of Rs. 1,31,040. 00 was awarded. The deductions in the nature of some benefits with regard to Provident Fund, pension as payable to the widow of the deceased, appellant no. 1, was made totalling Rs. 32,400. 00 which amount was deducted as pecuniary gain from the awarded amount. The learned judge then made a further deduction of 15 per cent for lump sum payment i. e. Rs. 14,7097 -. The ultimate amount which was accordingly assessed, was Rs. 83,356. 00, which was held to be just and reasonable compensation payable to the appellants. The liability was fixed in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent on the basis of composite negligence of the truck driver and the car driver respectively. Both the vehicles were insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company. It was pleaded that the insurance of the car did not cover compensation for gratuitous passenger. The copy of the comprehensive policy Ex. RW4/1 was filed and examined by the Tribunal and it was found that no extra premium was paid for covering risk to passengers. As such, it was held that respondent no. 5, the insurance company was not bound to make the payment for the gratuitous passenger. Respondent no. 3, who was the driver of the car and respondent no. 4 being the owner, were directed to pay the amount of 25 per cent which was assessed at Rs. 20,839. 00. This issue was decided accordingly. 5, the insurance company was not bound to make the payment for the gratuitous passenger. Respondent no. 3, who was the driver of the car and respondent no. 4 being the owner, were directed to pay the amount of 25 per cent which was assessed at Rs. 20,839. 00. This issue was decided accordingly. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the claimants as well as for the driver of the truck and the insurance company. The record has been produced and I have examined the same. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car whereas the truck driver was negligent in suddenly stopping the vehicle in the middle of the road without any warning and without any signal. This led to the unfortunate accident in which the deceased Prem Chand Gupta lost his life. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that no negligence can be attributed to the truck driver as it was parked on the road and was stationary at the time of the alleged accident. The vehicle coming from behind should have observed the necessary caution in overtaking the same, therefore, the negligence has to be attributed to the car driver. ( 8 ) THE first witness to which reference can be made is Public Witness 4 Kapur Chand Mittal. He can be termed as best witness being an eye witness of the occurrence. Shri Kapur Chand Mittal was occupant of the car which met with an accident and was the. elder brother of the deceased. He has stated that on August 26,1974 at about 8 P. M. he received a telephonic call from his village Pooth Khurd informing that his father was seriously ill and it was requested to bring some vehicle to the village. Thereafter, he along with deceased Prem Chand Gupta went to Dr. Pradeep Kumar Khanijo at about 8. 45p. M. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Khanijo, who was driving the vehicle came to the residence of the witness at Shakti Nagar. The car was driven by respondent no. 3, Dr. Khanijo and the deceased Prem Chand was sitting by his side on the front seat. The witness and one Purshottam Dass Gupta were sitting on the back seat of the car. M. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Khanijo, who was driving the vehicle came to the residence of the witness at Shakti Nagar. The car was driven by respondent no. 3, Dr. Khanijo and the deceased Prem Chand was sitting by his side on the front seat. The witness and one Purshottam Dass Gupta were sitting on the back seat of the car. The accident took place at 9,10 P. M. As the car was going on G. T. Road near Azadpur, it was noticed that truck bearing No. DHG 1613 was going ahead of the car at a distance of 7 to 8 yds. The driver of the truck without any indication and without any light stopped the truck suddenly. The car driver tried his level best to save the impact but the front left portion of the car collided with the truck and the witness and his brother deceased Prem Chand Gupta and cousin brother were badly injured. The witness further deposed that he also became unconscious and only regained consciousness after 3-4 days in Irwin Hospital. The deceased Prem Chand Gupta was a language teacher in Government Boys Higher Secondary School and he was quite healthy and left behind appellant Smt. Krishna Gupta, his widow, four children, two sons and two daughters. They were all minors at the time of accident. It is further stated that the deceased used to do tuition work in his part time. He also worked as Examiner and invigilator in the examinations conducted by the Department and the Central Government. It is further stated in the cross- examination by this witness that when the truck driver suddenly applied the brakes, the truck stopped then and there. The car driver tried to take the car towards his right. The indication light of the truck was on. The truck driver did not give any signal for stopping the vehicle nor he gave any horn. It was reiterated that there was no fault on the part of the car driver. The suggestion that the truck was standing by the left side of the road because it had gone out of order was vehemently denied by this witness. The truck driver did not give any signal for stopping the vehicle nor he gave any horn. It was reiterated that there was no fault on the part of the car driver. The suggestion that the truck was standing by the left side of the road because it had gone out of order was vehemently denied by this witness. The Tribunal has referred in paragraph 9 of the judgment that no other witness had been examined to lend support to the above said witness and there could naturally be not any other better witness than the occupant of the car itself. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has also referred me to the statement of Public Witness 4, particularly to the reference that the truck stopped then and there which according to him was not possible as when the brakes are applied, the vehicle goes few feet ahead and it never stops then and there. Reference to the statement of Public Witness 5a, Swinder Singh, who was Inspector Incharge was then made and it is reiterated that the road was 25 to 30ft wide at the place of accident. The truck was on the left side of the road and the car was on the middle of the road. The car had come back after hitting. It may also be noticed that this witness has also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the car driver. Therefore, the car driver was not challaned on preliminary investigation. Similarly reference was made to the statement of Public Witness 9 Raj Kishore to support that negligence was exclusively of the car driver, who was not produced as a witness. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence produced on behalf of the respondents. RWs 1 and 3 are Madan Lal, the driver of the truck and Rajesh Kumar, the alleged second driver with respondent no. 2. The first witness has stated that the truck was causing some problem and became erratic and untimely in driving. He stopped the truck as it was not running on the left side of the road on Kacha portion. He got down and after inspecting the truck found that the diesel main pipe of the vehicle had broken down and the diesel was leaking. On account of this breakage the truck could not be driven. He stopped the truck as it was not running on the left side of the road on Kacha portion. He got down and after inspecting the truck found that the diesel main pipe of the vehicle had broken down and the diesel was leaking. On account of this breakage the truck could not be driven. The accident occurred 15 to 20 minutes later when the car came from Delhi side. It struck against the right side of the stationary truck and the accident was not caused on account of any negligence on the part of this witness as the truck was not in motion. RW3was then examined. He has stated that he was employed as second driver with M/s Associated Traders and at the time of accident he was with RW 1 Madan Lal. He has reiterated the averments made by RW 1. This witness was not believed by the Tribunal and was held to be a procured witness whose presence at the spot was very doubtful. The statement that this witness did not see any damage on the truck stands disproved by the statement of Public Witness 9 Raj Kishore who had examined the truck and according to whom there were eight fresh damages found on the truck. The other part of his statement was also not believed and it was concluded that the witness was a procured witness and he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and, as such, his testimony was discarded. The site plan Ex. RW5a/1 was referred to and the Tribunal held that it lent support to the version of the accident given by Public Witness 4 Shri Kapur Chand Mittal. The truck was on the metalled road and no part of the same was on the katcha portion. On this basis it can be said that there was some obstruction caused by the truck for stopping the traffic even after it is assumed that the truck was stationary. The observations of the Tribunal in this regard that "even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the truck was stationary and the car came from behind and the accident took place, even then the driver of the truck cannot be absolved from his negligence in parking the truck on the road which caused obstruction to the flowing traffic" has some basis and have to be accepted. The reference to the Judgment as reported in Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh 1975 ACJ 396 is correctly made by the learned Judge. ( 10 ) MR. Khanna appearing for the respondents, on the other hand,contends that the car coming from behind and the driver which is following the other vehicle should exercise more care and caution and must remain at some distance. In this regard reference is made to the judgment as reported in Chan Loo Khee v. Lai Siew San and others 1971 ACJ 408. The facts of this case indicate that the defendant parked his car on a high way. He put on the park lights, as it was dark. The car came speeding from behind. It suddenly swerved towards the right on noticing the stationary car and collided with another car coming from opposite direction. In this situation, the driver of the stationary car was not held guilty of contributory negligence as by putting on the parking lights, he took the reasonable precaution and the law did not require any one to take extraordinary precautions. This judgment will not be of much help to the case of the respondents as the facts are different. In the present case, the evidence which has been accepted by the Tribunal establishes that the truck which was going ahead of the car suddenly applied brakes without giving any chance to the car following to prevent the accident. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence of Public Witness 4, who was an eye witness to the occurrence and discarded the evidence of the respondents. The site plan also indicated that the truck after the accident was found standing on the metalld portion of the road which means that there was no sufficient space forthe traffic moving in that direction as the entire lane meant for the traffic had been blocked by the stoppage of the truck on the metalled portion of the road. There was only one portion left, which was meant for traffic coming from Karnal towards Delhi. It is further held by the Tribunal that the site plan corroborates the testimony of Public Witness Public Witness 4 Kapur Chand Mittal which clearly indicated that the entire truck was on the metalled portion of the road and no part of the same was on Katcha portion. It is further held by the Tribunal that the site plan corroborates the testimony of Public Witness Public Witness 4 Kapur Chand Mittal which clearly indicated that the entire truck was on the metalled portion of the road and no part of the same was on Katcha portion. However, the Tribunal accepted contributory negligence on the part of the car driver as well, particularly in view of the fact that the car driver was not keeping safe distance in between his own vehicle and the truck. The distance of 6-7 yards between the two vehicles cannot "be said to be a safe distance particularly when the car was running at a speed of 40-45 kms per hour. ( 11 ) THE judgment as reported in Pushpa Rani Chopra andothers v. Anokha Singh and others 1975 ACJ 396 is of some relevance with regard to the negligence on the basis of obstruction on the road. The facts of this case indicates that the driver of the offending truck had parked his vehicle on the main road on a dark night when there was no street light, the motor cyclist dashed against the stationary truck resulting in his death. It was held that the truck driver was negligent by causing obstruction or inconvenience to the other users of the road. The motor vehicle had been allowed to remain on the road in such a position and in such a condition that it was bound to cause danger and obstruction to other users of the road. In this view of the matter, the driver of the truck was held negligent. The driver even of a parked vehicle ought to take care so as to avoid all possibility of an accident and also that the road be left open and unobstructed for the other users of the highway. Reliance is placed on judgments as reported in Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and others v. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others 1983acj 290; New lndia Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Maya Wati and others 1992 ACJ 620 and Sheokaran and others v. Surjit Kaur and others 1993 ACJ 652. These judgments highlight the proposition that the vehicle cannot, in any manner, be left on the road even in the stationary condition in a dangerous position to avoid all possibility of an accident and the road must be left open and unobstructed for the other users. These judgments highlight the proposition that the vehicle cannot, in any manner, be left on the road even in the stationary condition in a dangerous position to avoid all possibility of an accident and the road must be left open and unobstructed for the other users. The plea of negligence was, accordingly, upheld. The Tribunal has also held that the carwas running at faster speed and it was not possible for the driver to stop in the case of unforeseen eventuality. Therefore, taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced on record, the learned judge held that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the truck driver as well as car driver on account of rash and negligent driving leading to the unfortunate accident. The liability for the accident, accordingly, was fixed in the proportion of 75% and 25% respectively. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are based on assessment of evidence and cogent grounds. The same are accordingly affirmed. ( 12 ) THE next point which has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents is that the policy of insurance did not cover the passenger such as the deceased and the insurer was not liable on this basis. The Tribunal on perusal of the copy of the policy as Ex. RW4/1 has held that no extra premium was paid for passengers and respondent no. 5 who was the insurer of the car was not liable to make payment. The driver and the owner, respondents 3 and 4 were held liable to pay the proportion of compensation (25%) awarded on that basis. The judgments which have been cited to reiterate this proposition are K. N. P. Patel and others v. K. L. Kasar and others 1966 ACJ 284 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur and others 1967 ACJ 158 ; Chander Mohan and others v. D. C. Kapur and others 1970 ACJ 121 ; Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and others v. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and another 1977 ACJ 343: National Insurance Co. Ltd New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and others (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 626; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kantabai and others 1991 ACJ 22 and Kaushalaya Devi and others v. Dr. Lakhbir Sood and others 1994 ACJ 12. and another 1977 ACJ 343: National Insurance Co. Ltd New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and others (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 626; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kantabai and others 1991 ACJ 22 and Kaushalaya Devi and others v. Dr. Lakhbir Sood and others 1994 ACJ 12. These judgments clearly support the proposition as argued by learned counsel for the respondents that when the policy does not cover the passenger and no premium is paid on that count, the insurer cannot be held liable. I have also perused the copy of the policy which is part of the record which indicates that the policy did not cover the risk to the passengers and no extra premium was paid for this purpose. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and others (supra) has clearly underlined that "comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf. Likewise, if risk of any other nature for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers etc. in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor. This is the requirement of the tariff regulations framed for the purpose". Similar view is taken by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the judgments as reported in _prabhavati Sharma and others v. Brijmohan Parihar and others 1990 ACJ 399 , Kerala High Court in Chacko P. M. alias Thankachan v. Rosamma Antony and others 1991 ACJ 597; Allahabad High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Similar view is taken by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the judgments as reported in _prabhavati Sharma and others v. Brijmohan Parihar and others 1990 ACJ 399 , Kerala High Court in Chacko P. M. alias Thankachan v. Rosamma Antony and others 1991 ACJ 597; Allahabad High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Manju Goel and others 1991 ACJ 882 and of Gauhati High Court in Rashbihari Prasad and Others v. Parbati Kedia and others 1994 ACJ 532 There is, therefore, no infirmity and illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount, which is assessed forthe contributory negligence of respondents 3 and 4, the driver and the owner of the car. The finding of the Tribunal is, accordingly, affirmed. ( 14 ) THE next contention which is argued by learned counsel forthe appellants is that in a case of composite negligence, the claimants are within their rights to recover the entire amount from any of the tortfeasors. The learned counsel for the respondents has disputed this proposition and has argued that where the liability of the joint tortfeasors can be ascertained and has been apportioned on the basis of evidence, then the general rule is that the liability shall be divided and apportioned in that manner. Reference is made to the judgment of this Court, as reported in M. M. Jain (deceased) and others v. Faquir Chand and others 1988 ACJ 844 . Paragraph 4 of this judgment reads as follows: "4. The first question is regarding the liability to pay the compensation. The counsel for the claimants has submitted that the liability of the two insurance companies was joint and several and the claimant was free to recover the entire compensation from anyone of them. The counsel for respondent No. 5 has, on the other hand, submitted that the liability should be apportioned between the two vehicles involved in the accident. According to him the liability of the four- seater was60 percent while that of the motor cycle was 40 percent. He has further submitted that the compensation payable should be apportioned in that proportion. From the reading of the judgment I find that the Tribunal erred in not apportioning the liability and the payment of compensation. According to him the liability of the four- seater was60 percent while that of the motor cycle was 40 percent. He has further submitted that the compensation payable should be apportioned in that proportion. From the reading of the judgment I find that the Tribunal erred in not apportioning the liability and the payment of compensation. Where there are two or more joint tortfeasors the liability of the joint tortfeasors can be ascertained. The Tribunal should record the finding to that effect. If, however, the evidence is such that the liability cannot be apportioned then the general rule of joint and several liability of the tortfeasors should be applicable. The facts, as disclosed in the evidence of this case. are these. That the four-seater scooter was on the right side of the road and almost in the middle and the same is true about the motorcyclist. However, at the time of the accident the four-seater scooter went further on the right side by about 1 feet in an effort to overtake the three-wheeler scooter running in front of it. It gave little indication forthe motor-cyclist and it collided against the four-seater scooter. Of course, the motor cyclist could have still avoided the accident by little swerving to the left side. It was wrong on the part of both the vehicles not to keep to the left and to drive the vehicle almost in the middle of the road when the traffic was passing on both the sides. From these facts I hold that the blame of the four-seater scooter is more than that of the motor-cyclist, the proportion being 60 per cent liability of the four-seater and 40 per cent liability of the motor cycle. The compensation amount payable shall be divided in this manner. " ( 15 ) IN the present case, the Tribunal has clearly assessed the contributory negligence of the truck driver as well as of the car driver in the proportion of 75% and 25% respectively. The compensation amount payable shall, therefore, be divided in this manner. I order accordingly. ( 16 ) THE quantum of compensation, which has been awarded in favour of the appellants, is to be next considered. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is extremely low. The compensation amount payable shall, therefore, be divided in this manner. I order accordingly. ( 16 ) THE quantum of compensation, which has been awarded in favour of the appellants, is to be next considered. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is extremely low. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration any future prospects and the multiplier adopted is not based on cogent grounds. The deceased was held to be aged 38 years at the time of his death. He was having good health and was not suffering from any disease. He was working as a teacher in Government Boys Higher Secondary School under Delhi Administration. The total emoluments were assessed at Rs. 834. 45 per month at the time of death. The Tribunal deducted a further sum of 1/3rd of this amount for personal expenses and fixed the dependency at Rs. 546. 00 per month. The multiplier adopted is 20 years on the basis of retirement age of the deceased as at the time of accident he was held to be 38 years of age. The compensation awarded, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be termed as low as the Tribunal has not taken into account any future prospects and the expected rise in his salary and allowances on the basis of Pay Commission Reports. The Tribunal has also erred in deducting the amount for lumpsum payament as well as the amount which accrued to the widow for pension. Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. These deductions cannot be termed as valid deductions in the eyes of law. The accident took place in the year 1974 and the litigation has continued till date and the inflation and consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago much less than its value when the same is received after such a long time. The deduction on the basis of lumpsum payment can, therefore, not be held as sustainable. Similarly deductions for pension etc. are also not permissible. The Tribunal, accordingly, was not justified in making deductions on the above basis. ( 17 ) THE question now arises about the quantum of compensation to which the appellants-claimants are entitled in law. The deceased was 38 years of age. Similarly deductions for pension etc. are also not permissible. The Tribunal, accordingly, was not justified in making deductions on the above basis. ( 17 ) THE question now arises about the quantum of compensation to which the appellants-claimants are entitled in law. The deceased was 38 years of age. He was a permanent teacher in a Government School and it can be safely inferred that he would have contributed for the maintenance of his family atleast till the age of his retirement which I am told, is now fixed as60 years. He would have continued to work as a teacher and some consideration has to be given on that count. There has to be some allowance for increase in income which does not remain static at all times. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated that in case the deceased was alive he would have received a sum of Rs. 11,70,789. 00 during his service career and even afterwards he would have been entitled to receive pension of Rs. 4000. 00 per month on the basis of Government rules and regulations. The amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, which is claimed as compensation in the petition is, therefore, on the lower side. The deceased has left behind his widow and four minor children. he family has lost the love and care as well as financial support for such a long time as the death took place as far back as in the year 1974. The monthly dependency, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, can be assessed at Rs. 1500. 00 per month i. e. Rs. 18,000. 00 per annum which multiplied by 22 comes to Rs. 3,96,000. 00 in favour of the appellants-claimants. The appellants-claimants are held entitled to this amount. ( 19 ) THE Tribunal has only awarded interest on the condition that in case the respondents did not pay the awarded amount within 60 days, the appellants shall become entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the respondents till realisation. This indeed is not the correct position of law. The appellants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. This indeed is not the correct position of law. The appellants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. The amount which is now awarded in favour of the appellants shall be paid in the same proportion i. e. in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively by the respondents for the reasons as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. ( 20 ). FAO No. 230/79 is allowed in the above terms. FAO No. 231 /79 is dismissed. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000. 00.