JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short the HRTC) has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned Award dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala, in M.A.C.P. No. 83-D/II-2006, titled as Puran Chand and others v. H.R.T.C. and another, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7-1/2% per annum in favour of the claimants, respondents No. 1 to 6 herein (in short claimants). 2.On 23.8.2006, deceased Smt. Bimla Devi was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. HP-39-3993 owned by HRTC and in an accident which took place at village Tang, Teshil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, she died. Consequently, the claimants, who were defendants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming compensation on account of her death in the said accident. The transport vehicle was not insured. 3.The driver, respondent No. 7 herein filed a reply, admitting the accident but denying the negligence. 4.The owner, though filed a separate reply but, however, took the similar defence. 5.Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Bimla Devi died due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-39-3993 by respondent No. 2 ? ‘2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OP Parties. 3. Relief. 6.Appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal held that the driver had been negligent in driving the bus and the deceased died in the accident which was as a result of the said negligence. On the issue of compensation, taking into account the fact that the deceased was employed as a peon with the State Library at Dharamshala and drawing a salary of Rs. 2473/- and also the fact that she was contributing her services both to house hold and also the agricultural land, her income was taken to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. For the purposes of dependency, loss of income was taken to be Rs. 4,000/- per month less by 1/3rd = Rs. 4000/- minus Rs. 1,333/- = Rs. 2667/- and Rs. 32,000/- per annum. 4,000/- per month. For the purposes of dependency, loss of income was taken to be Rs. 4,000/- per month less by 1/3rd = Rs. 4000/- minus Rs. 1,333/- = Rs. 2667/- and Rs. 32,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, 35 years, age of her husband 50/55 years and the age of other dependents, two being minor children, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 14 and determined the loss of income to be Rs. 4,48,000/-. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 22,000/- was also awarded as conventional charges. Interest at the rate of 7-1/2% pendente lite and future was also awarded. 7.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8.In order to prove its case, the claimants have examined Dr. Chander Deep Sharma (PW-1), Shri Sawantatar Kumar (PW-2), Shri Ravi Guarang (PW-3), Shri Gopal Singh (PW-4), Shri Puran Chand (PW-5) and the HRTC has examined Shri Mehar Chand (RW-1). 9.The fact that the alleged accident took place on 23.8.2006 is not in dispute. The same, however, stands proved also by PW-3 who happened to be travelling in the bus at the relevant time. F.I.R. No. 183/2006 Ext.PW-4/A was registered in relation to the said accident also stands proved on record. 10.That the deceased died in the said accident stands proved by PW-3 and also PW-1, who carried out the post mortem as per report Ext.PW-1/A. 11.The question, however, is as to whether the driver, respondent No. 7 herein, had been negligent in driving the vehicle at the relevant time. That an F.I.R. was registered against the driver is evident from the statement of PW-4 and also as per the admission of the driver as RW-1. He has admitted that the compensation with regard to the alleged offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC is pending in the Court of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further, PW-3 has deposed that he was travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time and when the bus had reached at Tang and stopped, the deceased started alighting but, however, all of a sudden the driver drove away the bus as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. His version is fully corroborated by PW-5, who had gone to receive his wife at the bus stop. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the driver had been negligent in driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident and the deceased died as a result of the same. 12.That the claimants were dependent upon the deceased has not been disputed by the Tribunal. The challenge, however, is to the effect that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000/- as she was admittedly drawing a salary of Rs. 2473/- per month. 13.PW-2 has proved on record the pay certificate Ext.PW-2/A from which it is evident that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 2473/- per month. That she was on probation and likely to be permanently employed, is also evident from his statement. 14.PW-5 has deposed that the deceased was also looking after the agricultural work. At the time of her death, the deceased was having five children and two were minor. 15.It is true that there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the version of PW-5 that the deceased was helping him in doing the agricultural work but, however, it is also a matter of fact that there is no serious cross-examination on this point. 16.In V. Subbulakshmi and others v. S. Lakshmi and another, AIR 2008 SC 1256, the Apex Court has held that where there is no proof of income, some guess work is inevitable. 17.Be that as it may be the fact of the matter is that the deceased was young and her salary being a Government employee was likely to increase keeping in view the escalation in the prices. 18.The Apex Court in Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others, AIR 1996 SC 1274, while dealing with a case of a person employed in the Indian Army who, at the time of accident, was drawing a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month took into account the fact that the salary would have increased manifold and doubled the amount of salary for the purposes of determining the loss of income. 1500/- per month took into account the fact that the salary would have increased manifold and doubled the amount of salary for the purposes of determining the loss of income. 19.In the present case, the age of the deceased was 35 years and in ordinary course, she would have been in service and her salary would have increased in future. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has not erred in taking the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000/- per month. The fact that the deceased was rendering her services to the family also cannot be ignored. Her salary was not subjected to any statutory deductions. Therefore, I see no error in the same. 20.The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 14. The Apex Court in Savita Sharma and others v. Union of India/Chandigarh Administration and another, 2008 ACJ 2032, while dealing with a case of an Ayurvedic doctor, aged 53 years, where the High Court had reduced the multiplier applied by the Tribunal from ‘11’ to ‘8’, held that when a rough and ready reference is already provided in the 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, normally, it should be applied unless there are compelling reasons to take a different view in the matter. The Apex Court reversed the view taken by the High Court and upheld the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal. 21.As per the 2nd Schedule, the normal applicable multiplier would be 18. The claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objections. Even at the stage of hearing, no enhancement was sought for. 22.The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another, 2005(10) SCC 720, while dealing with a case of a person aged 37 years applied a multiplier of 18. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 14. The deceased had left behind five children, two of whom were minor. She herself was young. It also cannot be said that the compensation is much on the higher side. 23.The Tribunal has considered the entire material while passing the impugned award. I see no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the same. 24.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. M.R.B. ———————