Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 269 (KAR)

T. Munitayamma v. Oriental Insurance Company

2008-06-05

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2008
JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore City, in MVC No.1146/1 they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MFA No. 4238/2003 is filed by the claimants in M.V.C. 1146/1999 seeking enhancement of compensation being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA. No.4349/2003 is filed by respondent No.1 in the claim petition namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on the finding of actionable negligence and on the quantum compensation awarded. 3. During the course of the judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to their ranking in the Courts below. 4. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 claiming to be the wife, two mi, daughters and mother of one G. Narayana Reddy, filed claim petitl before the Tribunal in MVC No.1146/1999 seeking compensation for the death of said G. Narayana Reddy, who died in a road traffic accident that occured on 2.3.1999 at about 5.45 P.M. 5. The brief averments made in the claim petition are that; While the said G. Narayana Reddy was proceeding on his Motorcycle Rajdoot bearing No.CAC 4726 along with his friend Venkatesh Reddy on Varthur Tank Bund Road, a Maxi Cab bearing No.KA-11-950 driven by the 3rd respondent came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, the said Narayana Reddy died at the spot and the pillion rider G.Venkatesh Reddy died late in the Manipa1 Hospital. Thus, the accident was due. to rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its driver i.e 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner. The 1st respondent is the Insurer of the said Maxi Cab. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners for the death of the said Narayana Reddy. That the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family and all the petitioners were depending on the earnings of the deceased. That the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was working as an Electrician under Class- I license contractor and from the said work he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary, in addition to Rs.50/- per day towards food and conveyance. That the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was working as an Electrician under Class- I license contractor and from the said work he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary, in addition to Rs.50/- per day towards food and conveyance. Further the deceased was also doing inilk procurement between 4.00 to 6.00 A.M. and from this business he was earning a mmimum of Rs.5,000/- per month. In addition to this, the deceased was doing seasonal agricultural work. From this he used to get Rs.20,000/- per crop and he used to get two crops per year. Thus, the average mcome of the deceased from all the sources was Rs.15,000/- and he used to contribute the entire income to the welfare and benefit of the claimants. With all these contentions, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads. 6. Inspite of service of notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained absent and therefore they were placed exparte. The respond No.1-Insurer appeared before the Tribunal through his learned Counsel and contested the claim petition. In its objection, the respond, No.1 denied all the petition averments and contended that the accid in question was not on account of rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab by respondent No.3. But on the other hand, it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself in riding the Motorcycle.. It also denied the allegations regarding the various avocations said to have been pursued by the deceased and the income. It was further contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. However, respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of the Policy and its validity as on the date of the accident but contende’ that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. During trial, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.29. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in. However, copy of the Insurance Policy came to be marked as EX.D. 1. 8. After hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Tribunal by his judgment under appeal held that the accident was due to ras and negligent driving ofthe Maxi Cab by its driver-respondent No.3. On assessment of the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal by taking the total income of the deceased at Rs. 8. After hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Tribunal by his judgment under appeal held that the accident was due to ras and negligent driving ofthe Maxi Cab by its driver-respondent No.3. On assessment of the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal by taking the total income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- p.m. By applying the multiplier of 11 the Tribunal quantified the total loss of dependency at Rs.6,60,000/-. To this, the Tribunal added another sum of Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,90,000/-. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.1 to pay the entire compensation amount together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, petitioners 1 to 4 as stated earlier have filed MFA No.4238/2003, while the Insurance Company questioning the findings of the Tribunal has filed MFA No.4349/2003. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.1 to 4 contended that though the evidence placed by the petitioners on record indicates that the deceased had higher income, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.7,500/-. He further contended that the Tribunal for the purpose of finding out the proper multiplier has erroneously taken the average age of the deceased and his mother. In this regard, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased only for the purpose of finding out the proper multiplier, as the deceased in this case has left behind his wife and minor children as his dependents. He further contended that having regard to the number of dependents only 1/4th of his monthly earning should have been deducted for his personal expenses and balance 3/4th should have been considered as his contribution to the family and based on this the Tribunal ought to have quantified the loss of dependency the further contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side and they need to be enhanced. He also contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced to 9%. 11. He also contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced to 9%. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for responde, No.1-Insurance Company contended that the finding of the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence is erroneous and having regard to oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was solely due to negligence of the deceased himself riding the motorcycle. Alternatively, he contended that having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal atleast ought to have held that, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and such contributory negligence ought to have been quantified for the purpose of scaling down the compensation. He further contended that the evidence placed by the petitioners regarding the income of thed deceased are unreliable and the same is not convincing and acceptable. He contended that the Tribunal had no basis for fixing the month! income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-. He contended that the amounts’ of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are excesive. 12. In the light of the above, the points that arise for our consideration are; i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maxi Cab i.e respondent No.3? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded requires to be enhanced or reduced? 13. Point No. (i): As noticed above, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the deceased Narayana Reddy while riding his motorcycle bearing No.CAC 4726 along with Venkatesh Reddy as pillion rider on Varthur Tank Bund road, the Maxi cab bearing No.KA-11-950 driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased died at the spot, while the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries on the way to Manipal Hospital. Thus, according to the claimants, the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi cab by its driver. Respondent No.1 being the Insurer of the said Maxi Cab has denied this case of the appellants. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its driver. Respondent No.1 being the Insurer of the said Maxi Cab has denied this case of the appellants. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its driver. For this, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.5 eyewitness and also documentary evidence such as FIR, mahazar, sketch, IMV report etc. marked as Exs.P. 1 to P.8. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness to the accident alleged. Therefore, her evidence does not throw any light on this aspect of the matter. The only witness who has spoken about the accident is PW.5-Srinivas. According to the oral evidence of PW. 5, he knew the deceased and that on 2.3.1999 at about 5.45 P.M he was driving his jeep on Varthur Tank Bund road and one motorcycle was proceeding at a distance of about 100 ft. ahead of the jeep and at that time one Maxi Cab came from the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, Narayana Reddy, the rider of the motorcycle died at the spot while the pillion rider Venkatesh Reddy suffered head injuries. During the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited to discredit evidence. It is suggested in the cross-examination that he has deposed falsely and that he has not witnessed the accident. Thus, the evidc of PW.5 establishes that the Maxicab in question was driven by driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, which came from the opposite direction, resulting in the death Narayana Reddy. EX.P. 1 is the copy of the FIR, which establish that the Police registered a case against the driver of the Maxi cab respect of the accident for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and for other offences. EX.P.3 is the sketch scene of occurrence. The contents of Ex.P.3 have not been disput by the respondents. As could be seen from Ex.P.3, the road w running from North to South. The width of the tar road was 20 ft. with 2 ft. footpaths on either side. The motorcycle was proceedings from south to North and the Maxi Cab was proceeding from North South. The actual place of collision was at the Western side of the road. As could be seen from Ex.P.3, the road w running from North to South. The width of the tar road was 20 ft. with 2 ft. footpaths on either side. The motorcycle was proceedings from south to North and the Maxi Cab was proceeding from North South. The actual place of collision was at the Western side of the road. From this, it is clear that the Maxi Cab which was proceedil from North to South instead of moving on the Eastern side has go to the extreme Western side ofthe road i.e. to its wrong side all dashed against the motorcycle which was moving from South to North keeping to his left namely on the Western side of the road. From this description, it is manifestly clear that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Maxi cab. EX.P.7 is the copy of the charge sheet, which shows that after investigation, Police filed to charge sheet against the driver of the Maxi Cab. As against this, the respondents have not let in any evidence. The driver of the Maxicab was the best person to speak about the manner in which the accident occurred. For the reasons best known to the respondent, the driver of the Maxicab has not been examined. From the records noticed that no effort has been made by respondent No.1 to secure presence of the driver of the Maxicab for giving evidence. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified holding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its driver and there was no negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, we answer point No.(i) in the affirmative. 14. point No.(ii): As noticed above, it is the case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased was working as an Electrician in Progressive Engineering, was also doing milk vending business and was also an agriculturist. According to them the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month plus Rs.50/- per day as batta from the work as Electrician, Rs. 4,000/- per month from milk vending business and Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture. According to them the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month plus Rs.50/- per day as batta from the work as Electrician, Rs. 4,000/- per month from milk vending business and Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture. Thus, according to the claimants total monthly income of deceased was Rs.16,250/ - from all sources and from that amount if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, and by applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency workout to Rs.19,80,000/-. It is the grievance of the appellants that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- from all sources and has applied multiplier of 11, by taking the average age of the deceased and his mother and has quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.6,60,000/-. Thus, according to the appellants, this method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and the compensation under this head is too low as such it requires to be enhanced. 15. From para-8 of judgment under appeal, it is noticed that Tribunal has taken the income ofthe deceased at Rs. 7,500/- From sources i.e. Rs. 4,000/- as salary from the work as Electrician Rs.2,000/- from milk vending and Rs.1,500/- from agriculture. Thereafter by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased and by applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis average age of the deceased and his mother, has quantified the loss dependency at Rs.6,60,000/-. 16. Let us now proceed to consider the case of the appellants regarding the income of the deceased from each of the sources stated by them. Re. Income from the work as Electrician: The wife of the deceased who has been examined as PW. 1, in her oral evidence has reiterated that her husband was working as Electrician earnings Rs.6,000/- per month apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta, Rs.5,000/- from milk vending business and Rs. 40,000/- p.a from agriculture. According to her, her husband used to pay her Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- per month for family expenses. According to her, after the death of her husband she has sold away the cows and for looking after the agricultural land, she has appointed one Bhadranna on payment of Rs.3,000/- per, month, who inturn gives her Rs.10,000/- ever year and Ragi also. PW 1, the wife of the deceased in her evidenc has stated that one Mr. Nayak was paying her husband a salary of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.50/- per day. PW 1, the wife of the deceased in her evidenc has stated that one Mr. Nayak was paying her husband a salary of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.50/- per day. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from PW.1 that her husband was neither a Diploma nor a Degree holder to work as Electrician nor he has obtained any license from the Government to work as Electrician. According to her, her husband studied up to SSLC, she has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely to the effect that one Nayak was paying Rs.6,000/- per month as salary apart from dally batta of Rs.50/-. PW. 2 is one Ravindra Nayak. In his oral evidence, he has stated that he is a Class-I Electrical Contractor and he is the proprietor of a concern by name Progressive Engineering. He has further stated that the deceased was working under him as Electrician for 10 years prior to his death. The work of PW.2 was to execute electrical work like power jobs, lighting, water pumps etc. According to him no specific qualification is required for working as Electrical Supervisor and the deceased Narayana Reddy was experienced in electrical installation work. According to him, the deceased worked under him till the end of February 1999 and was paid salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.50/- for conveyance. According to him, his concern has KST and CST numbers. He has stated that Ex.P.12 is the certificate issued by him in respect of deceased and it bears his signature. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from PW.2 that he is not an Income Tax assessee and he had employed four persons to work in his concern. It is further elicited from him that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- depending on the work he get and his monthly income will be Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- if he get maximum work. According to this witness, his average monthly income is Rs.6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. It is elicited from him that he is not maintaining any Register with respect to employees and with regard to payments made to the employees towards their salary etc. He has further stated that he used to take receipts from his employees whenever he made payments and that there is no hurdle to produce those receipts. According to him, the deceased Narayana Reddy was staying 20 Kms. away from the place of work. He has further stated that he used to take receipts from his employees whenever he made payments and that there is no hurdle to produce those receipts. According to him, the deceased Narayana Reddy was staying 20 Kms. away from the place of work. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased Narayana Reddy was not working under him Electrician on a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. In the re-examinati it is elicited from him that his average income of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- was excluding wages of his employees and other incidental expenses and his annual turnover is about Rs.3 lakhs and he can also produce all the relevant documents before the Court. He has also furnished the KST and CST numbers. In the further examination he has admittl that he has not submitted the particulars of the employees to the Land Department. This is all the oral evidence regarding the avocation. the deceased as Electrician. Now the question is whether this eviden is sufficient to accept the case of the petitioner that the deceased w working as Electrician. As already noticed above, PW.1 who is the wife of the deceased has not disclosed the name of the concern in which her husband was stated to have been working as Electrician. Though PW.2 states that he is the Class- I Electrical Contractor carryin: on his business under the name and style of Progressive Engineering no document worthy of acceptance is produced to establish the said fact. PW.2 though has categorically stated that he has KST and CST numbers and in the re-examination has furnished those numbers it EX.P. 12 which is stated to be the certificate issued by PW.2 in respec of the deceased Narayana Reddy, the KST and CST numbers of the concern, are not mentioned. Except the certificate EX.P.12 and the oral evidence of PW.2, no other document is produced before the Court to accept the evidence of PW.2 that he is a Class- I contractor and under him the deceased was working as Electrician. As admitted by PW.1 the deceased had no special qualification to work as Electrician. He has studied only upto SSLC. Though PW.2 states that he has maintained all the records to show that the deceased was working under him as Electrician, no such document is produced before the Court. According to PW.1, her husband was also doing milk-vending business apart from agriculture. He has studied only upto SSLC. Though PW.2 states that he has maintained all the records to show that the deceased was working under him as Electrician, no such document is produced before the Court. According to PW.1, her husband was also doing milk-vending business apart from agriculture. If the evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was carrying on milk vending business and also agriculture, we wonder as to how he could have had time to work as Electrician on regular basis. According to PW.2, the working hours of his concern was between 9.30 to 5.30 P.M. As admitted by PW.2, the deceased was staying about 20 Kms. away from the place of work. It is also highly difficult to believe that to work as Electrician no special qualification is required. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, it is highly difficult to place reliance on the evidence of PW.2 and the certificate at Ex.P.12. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant claimants that the deceased was working as Electrician under PW.2 and was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta. We are of the view that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has come to the wrong conclusion that the claimants have proved that the deceased was working as Electrician. We are at loss to know as to how the Tribunal could take Rs.4,000/- as salary from the work as Electrician when the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary and adduced oral evidence through PW.2 and produced documentary evidence Ex.P.12 to prove the said fact. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding ofthe Tribunal that the deceased was working as an Electrician and that he was getting a sum of Rs.4,000/- as salary from the said work is erroneous. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider any income from the alleged work as Electrician. Re: Income from Milk vendine: PW.1 in her oral evidence has stated that her husband used to supply milk to the dairy in village from 5.30 to 6.30 A.M and from the milk vending business was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. In the cross-exarnination there is nothing to discredit her evidence in this regard. Re: Income from Milk vendine: PW.1 in her oral evidence has stated that her husband used to supply milk to the dairy in village from 5.30 to 6.30 A.M and from the milk vending business was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. In the cross-exarnination there is nothing to discredit her evidence in this regard. One Narayana has been examined PW.4 to substantiate the contention of the claimants that the deceased used to sell milk. PW.4 has stated in his evidence that he has been working as Secretary in the Co-operative Society at Jattagondanahalli and he knows the deceased Narayana Reddy. According to him, the deceased used to sell 25-30 Ltrs. every day to the said Society. He has further stated that the deceased used to come to the Society in the morning hours and he was sending his servant in the evening time. According to him, the deceased had four cows. He has further stated that he joined the Society in 1997 and even before that the deceased was selling milk to the Societ He has further stated that the Society used to make payments to the deceased in cash every fortnight and total amount approximately paid to the deceased by the Society was Rs. 4,000/- per month. According to him, the wife of the deceased sold away the cows after the death of the deceased. According to him, Ex.P.13 is the passbook that was issued by the Society to the deceased and entries therein are made by him. He has further stated that Exs.P.14 to P.20 are the coupon issued by the Society to the deceased for reference regarding supply of milk. According to him, the Directors of the Society by passing resolution appointed him as Secretary with effect from 11.04.1997 and a copy of such resolution has been marked as EX.P.30. The payment register for the year 1998-99 was also marked as Ex.P.31. This witness has been cross-examined by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1-Insurer. There is nothing elicited in the cros-examination to disbelieve his evidence. The fact that PW.4 was working as Secretary of the Co-operative Society is not disputed. His evidence that the deceased was supplying milk to the society hss not been seriously challenged. The evidence of PW. 2 in this regard is corrob orated by the documentary evidence namely passbook Ex.P.13 and supply cards Exs.P.14 to P.20. The fact that PW.4 was working as Secretary of the Co-operative Society is not disputed. His evidence that the deceased was supplying milk to the society hss not been seriously challenged. The evidence of PW. 2 in this regard is corrob orated by the documentary evidence namely passbook Ex.P.13 and supply cards Exs.P.14 to P.20. Ex.P.21 is the certificate issued by the Veterinary department in favour of the deceased for having participated in the Cattle Show held in Mudhsandra during the year 1993, Thus, the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that the deceased was carrying on milk vending business by raring milking cows and he was getting not less than Rs. 4,000/- from sale of milk. There are no reasons to reject this evidence. There is nothing unnatural for a person residing in rural area to have multifarious activities to earn money for the maintenance of himself and his family members. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellants have satisfactorily established that the deceased was carrying on milk vending business. The Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/- as the income from the milk vending business. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence produced, we are of the considered view that it is just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased from milk vending business at Rs. 4,000/- per month after meeting all the expenses incurred by him in this business. Re: Income from Agriculture: It is in the evidence of PW.1 that her husband was getting Rs. 40,000/- p.a from agricultural lands. In the cross-examination, only suggestion put to her was that the deceased was not getting Rs. 40,000/- p.a as agricultural income. PW.3-Bhadra Reddy has been examined to prove that the deceased is an agriculturist. PW.3 in his oral evidence has stated that he knew the deceased Narayana Reddy. According to this witness, he has been cultivating the land of Narayana Reddy as per the request of the wife of Narayana Reddy after his death. He has further stated that 4 acres of land stands in the name of Narayana Reddy and he did not know the survey number of land. He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land. He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land, mulberry crop is growth in the land. He has further stated that 4 acres of land stands in the name of Narayana Reddy and he did not know the survey number of land. He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land. He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land, mulberry crop is growth in the land. According to him, he gets the work done through coolies, and Munithayamma the wife of the deceased is paying Rs. 3,000/- per month for his service. He has further stated that he has been giving Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- to her annually after deducting his salary from out of the total agricultural income and he also give one or two bags of Ragi every year. In the cross-examination, he has denied all the suggestions put to him. The fact that the deceased was owing agricultural land is not seriously disputed. Exs. P.22 and P. 23 are the RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No. 70 and 73 of Jattagondanahalli village. According to Ex.P. 22 the total extent of land is 5 acres 3 guntas and out of this extent the deceased owned 23 guntas. According to Ex.P. 23, the total extent of the land in Sy.No. 73 is 3 acres 36 guntas out of which the deceased was owning 2 acres 1-1/2 gunts. Thus, the deceased was owining in all about 2 acres 24 guntas of dry land. According to Exs.P. 22 and P. 23, the nature of crop grown in those lands is shown as Nilgris and Ragi. Even after the death of the deceased, the land continues to exist and the appellants are getting the same cultivated by engaging services of others. It is not the case of the appellants that after the death of the deceased they have sold away the land. Therefore what is lost is the service of the deceased. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is justi and proper to quantify the said service of the deceased in this regard at Rs.2,000/- p.m. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased can be safely be taken at Rs. 6,000/- per month from all the source as discussed above. 17. The deceased has left behind his wife aged about 32 years two minor daughters aged 9 and 2 years and mother aged about 60 years. 6,000/- per month from all the source as discussed above. 17. The deceased has left behind his wife aged about 32 years two minor daughters aged 9 and 2 years and mother aged about 60 years. From the evidence on record, it is noticed that the deceased was an hardworker having multifarious activities. There is no indication in the evidence that the deceased was a spendthrift. Apart from maintaining himself, he was required to maintain his wife, two minor daughters and aged mother. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that only 1/4 of his monthly income is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the monthly loss of contribution to the family works out at Rs.4,500/- and annual loss works out at Rs.54,000/-. As noticed above, the Tribunal for finding out appropriate multiplier has taken the average age of the deceased and his mother. In our considered view, this method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. When the deceased has left behind his wife and two minor daughters apart from the mother, for the purpose of finding out the appropriate multiplier to quantify the loss of dependency, the age of the deceased alone is relevant. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 11 by taking the average age of the deceased and his mother. According to the PM report-Ex.P. 5, the age of the deceased was 37 years. The contentions of PM report have not been seriously challenged. Therefore, the age of the deceased can safely be taken as 37 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 15. Thus the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,10,000/- (Rs. 4,500x12x15). The appellants-claimants are entitled for this amount under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of filial love and affection. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- and conventional heads. In our opinion, the compensation awarded on the head of funeral expenses and loss of consortium is on the lower side and under each of these two heads, the claimants are entitled Rs.10,000/-. The award of Rs. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- and conventional heads. In our opinion, the compensation awarded on the head of funeral expenses and loss of consortium is on the lower side and under each of these two heads, the claimants are entitled Rs.10,000/-. The award of Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of filial love and affection are just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-. The Tribunal has grant interest at 6% p.a. on the compensation amount. This being a death case, we are of the considered opinion that the rate of interest award at 6% p.a. is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancing rate of interest. 19. In the light ofthe above discussion, the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No. 4238/2003 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,50,000/- as against the award of Rs.6,90,000/-- by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of Rs.1,60,000/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a. From the date of petition till the date of payment. The respondent No.1-Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest and costs within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned and disbursed to the claimants in the same proportion as directed by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Insurer in MFA No.4349/2003 dismissed.