JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goel, counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri K.K. Shah, counsel for the respondent no. 2. This is an appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 236 of 2004 Smt. Dalveer Kaur and others Vs. Rashid Ahmad Sheikh and others. 3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimant – appellant being M.A.C.P. No. 236 of 2004 Smt. Dalveer Kaur and others Vs. Rashid Ahmad Sheikh and others claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. According to the claimant/appellant, on 16.5.2004 Kulvinder Singh (son of Sri Udham Singh) (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was driving Eicher Canter No. U.A. 06B-3470, as soon as their canter reached Salumber Bridge at about 1.30 p.m., all of a sudden, a truck No. M.H. 04AL-8220 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), which was coming from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with the canter. In this accident, the deceased received grievous injuries and died during the treatment. First Information Report of the said accident was lodged at P.S. Goverdhan Vilas, District – Thane by one Gurjeet Singh at the same day. At the time of accident, deceased was 32 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the agricultural work. 5. Owner of the offending truck did not turn up in the Court, thus, the matter proceeded ex parte against him. 6. United India Insurance Company has contested the claim by filing a written statement Paper No. 21 Kha stating therein in the additional pleas that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence and further the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently and at the time of accident, drivers of both the trucks were not holding valid driving licence. 7. 7. New India Insurance Company has also contested the claim by filing a written statement Paper No. 16 Kha stating therein in the additional pleas that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. M.H. 04AL-8220 and there was no fault of the driver of the Canter. It has further been stated that at the time of accident, the Registration Certificate, Insurance, Fitness were not effective and valid. 8. On the pleadings of both the parties, claims tribunal has framed following issues : ß1- D;k nq?kZVuk fnukad 16-5-2004 dks le; 1-30 cts lka;] LFkku lyqEcj jksM] cgn Fkkuk xkso/kZu foykl] ftyk Fkk.ks ¼egkjk’Vª½ eas Vªd la[;k & ,eñ,pñ&4,,y&8220 dks mlds pkyd }kjk rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k vFkok vk;”kj dsUVj la[;k ;wñ,ñ&06@ch&3470 ds pkyd }kjk mDr okgu dks rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k ?kfVr gq;h] ftlesa dqyfoUnj flag dh e`R;q gks x;h\ ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko\ 3- D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk 16-5-2004 dks mijksDr iz”uxr okgu pkydksa ds ikl oS/k Mªkbfoax ykblsal ugha Fks\ ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko\ 2- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj dh /kujkf”k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ ;fn gk¡ rks fdruh /kujkf”k o fdl i{kdkj ls\Þ 9. On behalf of the claimants, affidavits of Smt. Dalveer paper No. 28 Kha and ocular witness Gurjeet Singh Paper No. 29 Kha have been filed. Both of them have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Towards the documentary evidence, claimants have filed per list 7Ga seventeen documents i.e. copy of First Information Report, Panchnama, Post Mortem Report, Charge Sheet, copy of the Registration Certificate of Canter No. U.A. 06B-3470, copy of the Insurance Cover Note, copy of the permit, copy of the Tax Payment Receipt, copy of the fitness certificate and copy of the driving licence of Kulvinder Singh, copy of the Pollution Control Certificate, copy of the Fitness Certificate, copy of the Permit, Copy of the Insurance Cover Note, copy of Naksha Najri and Charge Sheet. 10. On behalf of the opposite parties, no one was examined. Towards the documentary evidence, United India Insurance Company has filed the certificate issued regarding the driving licence of the Mohd. Rafik. Respondent no. 2 has filed no documents. 11. 10. On behalf of the opposite parties, no one was examined. Towards the documentary evidence, United India Insurance Company has filed the certificate issued regarding the driving licence of the Mohd. Rafik. Respondent no. 2 has filed no documents. 11. While deciding the Issue No. 1 as to whether on 16.5.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. MH-4AL-8220 or due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Canter No. U.A. 06/B-3470 accident took place near Sambular Road, P.S. Govardhan Vilas, District Thane (Maharashtra), in which Kulvinder Singh died, claims tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of Gurjeet Singh, who is an ocular witness. He has stated that on 16.5.2004, the driver of truck No. MH-04AL-8220 was driving the same rashly and negligently and it dashed the Canter from the front side, in which Narvail Singh received fatal injuries and died in the hospital during treatment. Claims tribunal has disbelieved the statement of respondents no. 1 and 2, who have stated the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Either Canter no. U.A. 06B-3470 as they have not produced any documentary evidence showing that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Canter No. U.A. 06B-3470. Further the claims tribunal has placed reliance on charge-sheet, post mortem report of the deceased, Naksha Najri and First Information Report, where rashness and negligence has been mentioned on behalf of the driver of Truck No. MH-04 AL-8220. Against it, no document has been produced by the respondents. Thus, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. MH-04 AL-8220 at Sambular Road, P.S. Govardhan Vilas, District Thane, in which Kulvinder Singh died. This issue has been decided in favour of the claimants. 12. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed. 13. While deciding the issue No. 2 as to whether on 16.5.2004, drivers of the vehicles in question were not holding valid driving licence, claims tribunal has placed reliance on the photocopy of the driving licence of Kulvinder Singh Paper no. 7Ga/22, which shows that the same was valid at the time of accident. 13. While deciding the issue No. 2 as to whether on 16.5.2004, drivers of the vehicles in question were not holding valid driving licence, claims tribunal has placed reliance on the photocopy of the driving licence of Kulvinder Singh Paper no. 7Ga/22, which shows that the same was valid at the time of accident. Further reliance has been placed on photocopy of the driving licence of the Truck No. MH-04-AL-8220, which also shows that the same was valid at the time of accident. Thus, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that at the time of accident, both the drivers were holding valid driving licence. 14. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed. 15. While deciding the Issue No. 2 with regard to quantum of compensation, claims tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further 1/3rd of the personal expenses has been deducted from the said amount, then the dependency comes to Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 24,000/- per annum). Further, claims tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years according to the Post Mortem Report and has also taken into consideration the age of parents as 60 and 55 years and taking into consideration the age of the parents, multiplier of 5 has been selected. Multiplying the annual dependency with 5, amount of compensation has been worked out to Rs. 1,20,000/- Apart from that, claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- towards compensation along with simple interest @ 5% per annum. Since the truck No. MH-04 AL-8220 has been found to be on fault, thus, the United India Insurance Company with which the in question is insured has been held to be liable to pay compensation. 16. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that while awarding the compensation multiplier of only 5 has been selected, though it should have been 8. Further, the claimants have not been awarded any amount towards love and affection. 17. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is 55 years, thus, taking into consideration her, multiplier should be of 8 in place of 5. 18. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors. Further, the claimants have not been awarded any amount towards love and affection. 17. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is 55 years, thus, taking into consideration her, multiplier should be of 8 in place of 5. 18. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors. 2005(4) Supreme 87 has observed as under : “8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants many not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year’s purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis “and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case “it is the overall picture that matters”, and the court must try to assess the best as it can the loss suffered. 11. There were two methods adopted to determine and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case (supra) and the second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951(2) All ER 448). 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicant having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. Ltd. (1951(2) All ER 448). 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicant having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicant by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be held to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 13. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplock in his speech in Mallett v. Mc Mongle (1969 (2) All ER 178) where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed : “The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the dependency is annual value of the material benefits provided for the dependants out of the earnings of the deceased at the date of his death. But......there are many factors which might have led to variations 9up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells or unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But ion considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can be in the chances of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it ion the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon thuetoral award of damages. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon thuetoral award of damages. Thus at interest rates of 4-½% the present value of an annuity for 20 years of which the first ten years are at $100 per annum and the second ten years at $200 per annum, is about 12 years’ purchase of the arithmetic average annuity of $150 per annum, whereas if the first ten years are at $200 per annum and the second ten years at $100 per annum the present value is about 14 years’ purchase of the arithmetical mean of $150 per annum. If therefore the chances of variations in the dependency are to be reflected in the multiplicand of which the years’ purchase is the multiplier, variations in the dependency which are not expected to take place until after ten years should have only a relatively small effect in increasing or diminishing the dependency’ used for the purpose of assessing the damages.” 19. In view of the above, multiplying the annual dependency with 8 and including Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,94,000/-. Thus, apart from the amount awarded by the claims tribunal, the claimants shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as enhanced compensation. 20. Consequently, Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.