JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) - The claimants have filed the present appeal assailing the impugned award dated 7.5.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 100 of 1998, titled as Smt. Neelam and others v. Ram Bax and others, awarding compensation of Rs. 10,62,000/- plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimants. 2.Since the scope of the present appeal is narrow, facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are being narrated hereinabove. 3.The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation on account on death of Shri Suresh Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, in an accident on 28.9.1998. Vehicle No. HP-20-1264, owned by Shri Ajay Jaswal and driven by Shri Ram Bax hit scooter No. HP-20-9530 being driven by the deceased. The accident occurred due to the negligence of Shri Ram Bax in which Shri Suresh Kumar sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. 4.Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident took place on 28.9.1998 at 6 p.m. at Badehra due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-20-1264 by respondent No. 1 in which Suresh Kumar died as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar in the accident ? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has been filed in contravention of the provisions of M.V. Act as alleged, if so its effect ? OPR-3 4. Whether the bus was being used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so its effect ? OPR-3. 5. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence ? If so its effect ? OPR-3. 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the scooter has not been impleaded as party ? OPR-3 7. Relief. 5.Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal held that the deceased Suresh Kumar had died in an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-20-1264 by Shri Ram Bax. OPR-3 7. Relief. 5.Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal held that the deceased Suresh Kumar had died in an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-20-1264 by Shri Ram Bax. The vehicle being insured and the driver holding a valid and effective driving licence the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 6.On Issue No. 2, the Court found the claimants to be the legal heirs of the deceased and taking into account the loss of dependency to be Rs. 87,000/- per annum by applying a multiplier of ‘12’ total compensation for loss of income was determined to be Rs. 10,44,000/-. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- as funeral charges was also awarded. 7.The impugned award has been assailed only by the claimant. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the owner, driver or the insurer. 8.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also pursued the record. 9.As on the date of the death, it is proved by the claimants’ witnesses Shri Bhajan Singh (PW-1), Shri Rajinder Kumar (PW-2), Smt. Neelam (PW-5) that the deceased was working as an agent of Life Insurance Corporation and had earned the following commission for the last three preceding years prior to his death :- 19981,45,181.00 19973,00,261.71 19962,70,418.41 10.In my view, keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and others, 2008(4) SCC 162, the Court below has rightly taken into account the income for the year 1998. For the purpose of determining the loss of dependency and income to the family, the income as on the date of the death has to be taken into account. The accident took place in September, 1998. Submission of Mr. Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, that the income of all the three years preceding the year of death should be clubbed and mean of the same should be considered for the purpose of determining the loss of income is not acceptable in view of the well settled position of law. 11.In my view, the Tribunal has rightly taken the figure to be Rs. 1,44,581/- and deducted the component of income tax of Rs. 14,357/- on the same. 11.In my view, the Tribunal has rightly taken the figure to be Rs. 1,44,581/- and deducted the component of income tax of Rs. 14,357/- on the same. The Tribunal has also rightly deducted 1/3rd of the balance amount for the purpose of determining the dependency and the loss of income to the family, which finally was worked out to be Rs. 87,000/- per annum. 12.For the purpose of determining the multiplier, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to be 35 years. The Tribunal has referred to two documents, i.e., Matriculation certificate and Post Mortem report Ext.PH. As per Matriculation certificate, the age of the deceased on the date of the death is about 31 years, but, however, the Post mortem report records the age to be 35 years. Relying upon the post-mortem report Ext.PH, the Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 35 years. 13.In my view, the approach adopted by the Tribunal below is totally erroneous. The Post-Mortem report proved by Dr. V.K. Raizada (PW-4), claimant’s witness was to prove the factum of the death of the deceased and not to prove the age of the deceased. The claimant-widow of the deceased PW-5 stepped into the witness box and categorically deposed the age of the deceased to be 28/29 years, which is more proximate to the age as given in the Matriculation certificate. The said document was marked as Mark ‘X’. Her deposition reveals that there is no cross-examination on the point of age. For the aforesaid reason, in my view, the Tribunal has erred in deciding the age of the deceased to be 35 years, which in the present case is held to be 31 years. 14.The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘12’ while determining the compensation payable to the claimants. The age of the deceased as on the date of the accident is held to be 31 years. As on the date of the accident the age of the claimant No. 1-widow was about 26 years, claimants No. 2 and 2-A were minor son and daughter and claimant No. 3 is the father of the deceased. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and the widow was left to fend for herself. Therefore, in my view, the multiplier of ‘14’ would be fair and just. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and the widow was left to fend for herself. Therefore, in my view, the multiplier of ‘14’ would be fair and just. 15.No doubt, the compensation to be awarded is neither charity nor bounty, but, however, the Legislation being beneficial in nature, the Court has to adopt a liberal approach while awarding compensation. The Apex Court in Hardeo Kaur and others v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another, 1992(2) SCC 567, has reiterated the following passage as held by the Apex Court in its earlier decision :- “8. This Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmla Devi, 1979(4) SCC 365 :- “The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales.” 16.In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1995 ACJ 366, Apex Court has laid down the following criteria for awarding the compensation :- “Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of mattes i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” 17.Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 12,18,000/- (Rs. 8700x14). 18.Further, in my view of the loss of consortium and funeral charges have also been awarded on the lower side and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- plus Rs. 3000/- should be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 19.For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. 12,18,000/- (Rs. 8700x14). 18.Further, in my view of the loss of consortium and funeral charges have also been awarded on the lower side and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- plus Rs. 3000/- should be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 19.For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Needless to say that the claimants are entitled to aforesaid enhanced compensation in proportionate to their shares and interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly. M.R.B. ———————