JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) - Award dated 24.5.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, HP in MAC Petition No. 26-NL/2 of 2001 titled as Smt. Surjeet Kaur and others v. Shamsher Singh and others, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of claimant No. 1 Smt. Surjeet Kaur, widow of the deceased is under challenge. 2.A petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 6 lacs on account of death of Shri Darshan Singh, who died in an accident, which took place on 1.7.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of Shri Parkash Chand -respondent No. 2 of vehicle No. HP-34-3815. 3.Shri Shamsher Singh respondent No. 1 owner and Shri Parkash Chand, respondent No. 2 driver filed a joint written statement and National Insurance Company Limited filed separate written statements. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues :- “1. Whether on 1.7.2001 at about 7 p.m. at Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar the petitioner’s husband borne scooter No. HP-12-6801 was hit by truck No. HP-34-3815 driven by the respondent No. 2, who succumbed to his injuries at the spot as alleged ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 was rash and negligent in driving truck No. HP-34-3815 as alleged ? OPR 4. Whether the truck driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident ? OPR-3. 5. Whether the truck driver was driving the truck in violation of policy conditions as alleged. If so its effect ? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 4.Appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in the affirmative holding that Shri Darshan Singh husband of claimant No. 1 died in an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-34-3815 by respondent No. 2. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided against the Insurance Company and it was held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence and there was no violation of the policy conditions. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided against the Insurance Company and it was held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence and there was no violation of the policy conditions. 5.On Issue No. 2 pertaining to the compensation to be awarded to the claimants, the Tribunal held that claimant No. 1 alone was entitled to compensation and the deceased was having an income of Rs. 3000/- per month and pendency was worked out to be 2/3rd of the said amount. Considering the deceased to be of 52 years and claimant No. 1 to be of 50 years, a multiplier of ‘8’ was applied and a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- was determined as compensation in addition to conventional charges of Rs. 10,000/-. 6.It is against this finding of fact that claimant No. 1 has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by any of respondents. 7.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8.The age of the deceased and the defendant-appellant is not in dispute. Smt. Surjeet Kaur (PW-1) has deposed that her husband was an agriculturist and a transporter and was owning two trucks. In cross-examination, she has admitted that one truck was being driven by her son. She has deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on this point at all by any of the respondents. The fact that the deceased was owning two trucks in his own name is evident from the Registration Certificate Ext.P-2 and Ext.P-3 of the said vehicles. The deceased was definitely a man of means. Assuming that one of the trucks was being managed by his son who was keeping the entire income to himself the income from at least one truck was there to the deceased. 9.It is true no proof of income has been placed on record by the claimants, but, however, it is equally true that the claimant has not been cross-examined on the point of income of the deceased. 9.It is true no proof of income has been placed on record by the claimants, but, however, it is equally true that the claimant has not been cross-examined on the point of income of the deceased. 10.The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and others, 2008(4) SCC 162, after considering its earlier decisions in N. Sivammal v. Pandian Roadways Corpn., 1985(1) SCC 18, GM, Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994(2) SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996(3) SCC 179, Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001(3) SCC 714, T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005(10) SCC 720, U.P. SRTC v. Krishna Bala, 2006(6) SCC 249, MD, T.N. STC v. Sripriya, 2007(13) SCC 641 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008(2) SCC 763 has held that the amount of compensation indisputably should be determined having regard to the pecuniary loss caused to the defendants by reason of the death of the victim. The earning of the deceased at the time of the accident including future prospects within the legal principals have to be considered. 11.The Court has approved its earlier views, which are reproduced as under :- “The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand 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 multiplicand by way of annual interest. 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 multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.” “In Black’s Law Dictionary, “compensation” is shown as - ‘equivalent in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute.’ “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 dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may 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. 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 capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years’ purchase. 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. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years’ purchase. 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 as best as it can the loss suffered.” “If the dictionary meaning of the word `income’ is taken to its logical conclusion, it should included those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income-tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.” 12.For the purpose of determination of compensation, the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735, has determined the income of a house of wife to be Rs. 3000/-. The Tribunal in the instant case also arrived at the said figure, but, however, without any basis. The death took place in the year 2001. The deceased was a transporter. If in the case of a house wife the income can be Rs. 3000/- then definitely in the instant case, the income of the deceased is bound to be more than that. 13.The deceased was a man of means and still had many more years to earn his livelihood. Some guess work is required to be done to arrive at the exact income. In my view, the total income of the deceased can be assessed to be at Rs. 6000/- per annum instead of Rs. 3000/- determined by the Tribunal and for the purpose of dependency the income is assessed at Rs. 4000/-. the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘8’, which keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others, 2007(10) SCC 1, is quite reasonable. Therefore, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation Rs. 4000x12 = Rs. 48,000/- x 8 Rs. 3,84,000/-. 14.The claimant has been awarded Rs. 10,000/- as conventional charges. In my view it is on the lesser side and it would be just if Rs. Therefore, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation Rs. 4000x12 = Rs. 48,000/- x 8 Rs. 3,84,000/-. 14.The claimant has been awarded Rs. 10,000/- as conventional charges. In my view it is on the lesser side and it would be just if Rs. 20,000/- as lumpsum are awarded as funeral charges, consortium charges including love and affection. This is considering that some expenditure must have been incurred as the deceased died in an accident at a distant place from his residence and post-mortem took place at Anandpur Sahib in Punjab. 15.Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others, 2003(7) SCC 484 to contend that normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable where the agriculture income is the source and attendant circumstances have to be considered. I may clarify that the deceased was an agriculturist has not been taken into account while arriving at the income of the deceased. 16.The present appeal is accordingly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to the aforesaid amounts alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. M.R.B. ———————