JUDGMENT 1. - These five misc. appeals,* C.M.A. Nos. 1036/2003, 1035/2003, 1034/2003, 1037/2003 and 1041/2003, preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the common award dated 18.1.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") in claim case Nos. 169/1999 Sml. Maya & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors., 170/1999 Smt. Munni & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors., 171/1999 Smt. Sharda & Ors, v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. , 180/1999 Smi. Jagni & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. and 182/1999 Madan Let & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. involving common questions have been heard together and shall be governed by this common order. 2. Background facts leading to these misc. appeals could be noticed thus:On 28.8.1999 at about 6.00 P.M., Bus No. RJ-05-P-0221 being driven in fast speed rashly and negligently by its driver respondent, when he tried to overtake another motor vehicle dashed against the railing of a bridge (Maloni Puliya), the railing got broken, bus fell down in a river resulting in death and grievous and simple injuries to several persons. 'this accident as result of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver-respondent No. 1. CMA No. 1036/2003 Smt. Maya & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 169/1999:1. A claim petition no. 169/1999 Smt. Maya & Ors, v. Dinesh Chad & Ors. as filed before the learned Tribunal, Bharatpur on 15.9.1999, the appellants are widow, minor children and parents. A claim was made to the tune of Rs. 24,81,000/- due to negligence of respondent driver of the bus, when he was driving the bus No. RJ-05-P-0221 belonging to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The bus was insured with respondent No. 4-Insurance Company. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Kishno was only bread earner and a young man of 32 years of age. It was also averred in the claim petition that he was "Karigar" (skilled workman) engaged in the work of building construction and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,800/- per month. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 despite service did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The respondent No. 4-Insurance Company filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and also took a plea that the driver of the bus was not holding proper driving license. 4,800/- per month. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 despite service did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The respondent No. 4-Insurance Company filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and also took a plea that the driver of the bus was not holding proper driving license. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties in all framed four issues. Issue No. 1 was in relation to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver-respondent No. 1 resulting in accident by fall of the bus in the river and death of several persons. Issue No. 2 was in relation to award of compensation to the claimants. Issue No. 3 was in relation to valid driving license and also in relation to the valid route permit and also in relation to excessive passenger in the bus. Issue No. 4 was in relation to relief. The claimants examined in all'' the claim petitions 21 witnesses and tendered 86 documents in documentary evidence. No oral evidence was produced by the respondents. The Insurance Company tendered in evidence the insurance policy. 'I1ic learned 'tribunal considering the statements of AW. 6 Bhuri Singh, AW-7 Rajendra, AW-8 Boli, AW-9 Muna Lal, AW-10 Lakhan Singh and AW. 14 Smt. Roshni post-mortum report and FIR etc came to the conclusion that bus driver-Murari Lal was responsible for the accident as he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in death and grievous and simple injuries to several persons. The learned Tribunal in relation to Issue No. 3 recorded its findings to the effect that no evidence was produced by the respondent-Insurance Company to prove this issue, therefore, Issue No. 3 which was in relation to the objections raised by the Insurance Company in their written statement to the effect that driver was no valid permit to ply the bus on the route. The learned 'tribunal on Issue No. 2 recorded its findings to the effect that the income pleaded by the claimants of the deceased Kishno @ Rs. 4,800/-, per month could not be established in the absence of satisfactory evidence, therefore, considering seven dependents of the deceased on the income of the deceased in the facts and circumstances of the case considered monthly income @ Rs. 4,800/-, per month could not be established in the absence of satisfactory evidence, therefore, considering seven dependents of the deceased on the income of the deceased in the facts and circumstances of the case considered monthly income @ Rs. 1,800/-per month and after applying multiplier of 16 deducted ⅓ amount against personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,30,400/-. On other heads also compensation has been awarded. In all compensation of Rs. 2,72,400/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 18.1.2003, hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement has been filed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the instant case multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas multiplier of 17 was required to' be applied. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased only @ Rs. 1800/- per month. According to the learned counsel the income of the deceased Rs. 60/- per day is a very meager amount and has not been properly assessed. According to the learned counsel amount of Rs. 1800/- per month determined by the learned Tribunal needs to be enhanced. 'the learned counsel further submits that looking to the dependency of seven persons and the labour charges of skilled worker Rs. 60 per day to a 'Karigar' is not the correct assessment of the income. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions and submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed a reasoned award, which does not require any interference by this Court, and the compensation awarded is adequate compensation. 4. 1 have considered the submissions made before me, perused the impugned judgment/award. 5. In the present matter the point for determination is that as to whether the compensation awarded is adequate or needs to be enhanced. It is not in dispute that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. I and as a result of which the deceased Kislulo died leaving behind seven dependents. The learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 1800/- per month because no documentary evidence was produced and "Thekakar' was not produced in evidence with whom the deceased was working. In my opinion assessment of the income of the deceased @ Rs. The learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 1800/- per month because no documentary evidence was produced and "Thekakar' was not produced in evidence with whom the deceased was working. In my opinion assessment of the income of the deceased @ Rs. 1800/- per month is at the lower side and it needs to be enhanced by adding Rs. 300/- considering per day wages @ Rs. 70/- per day thus, I consider the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 2100/- per month. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas according to the second Schedule of the Act multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, a perusal of Second Schedule shows that multiplier of 17 will be applicable in the matters where age of the deceased is above 30 years and below 35 years. 6. In view of above, the calculations are required to be made accordingly after making ⅓ deductions against the personal expenses of the deceased. The amount which comes is as under: 2100 x ⅓ x 12 x 17=2,85,600/ 7. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to receive compensation of Rs, 3,27,60( (Rs. 2,85,600+Rs. 42,000/-) instead of Rs. 2,72,400/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to receive interest on enhanced compensation as determined by the learned 'Tribunal from the date of impugned award. 8. In the result, this misc. appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment award dated 18.1.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims 'Tribunal, Bharatpur in Claim Case No. 169/1999 stands modified to the extent of Rs. 3,27,600/- instead of Rs. 2,72,400/- The appellants shall also be entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the learned 'Tribunal from the date of passing of the impugned award. CMA No. 1035/2003 Smt. Munni & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 170/1999: 9. In the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants, it was averred that Shri Vijendra Singh died in the accident on 28.8.1999 as the driver of the bus No. RJ-05-I'-0221 driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. The bus dashed against railing of a bride and fell down into a river. Claim Case No. 170/1999: 9. In the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants, it was averred that Shri Vijendra Singh died in the accident on 28.8.1999 as the driver of the bus No. RJ-05-I'-0221 driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. The bus dashed against railing of a bride and fell down into a river. It was also averred that the deceased was at the time of accident 28 years of age. The deceased was a 'Karigar' and engaged in the work of building construction and earning Rs. 4500/- per month. The claimants in this case are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased. The compensation in all was sought of Rs. 25,75,000/-. The respondent No. 3 is the driver and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are owners of the bus. The respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The respondent No. 4 filed written statement and denied the averments of the claim petition. The learned 'Tribunal after framing necessary issues, recorded oral evidence and after hearing both the side awarded compensation of Rs. 2,57,400/-, hence, this misc. appeal has been filed. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the instant case the multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas multiplier of 18 was required to be applied as the deceased was 28 years of age. It has also been contended that monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at the lower side which needs to be enhanced properly. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the ]earned Tribunal has passed a reasoned award; therefore, no interference is required to be made. 12. 1 have considered the submissions made before me, perused the impugned judgment/award. 13. It is to be seen that in the oral evidence, AW.5 Smt. Munni has stated that the deceased Vijendra Singh was her husband and he was 28 years of age at the time of death in the accident. It has also been stated that his monthly income was Rs. 4500/- per month. The factum of accident and death of Vijendra could not he controverted by the respondents. Issue No. 1 was in relation to accident and has been decided in favour of the claimants. It has also been stated that his monthly income was Rs. 4500/- per month. The factum of accident and death of Vijendra could not he controverted by the respondents. Issue No. 1 was in relation to accident and has been decided in favour of the claimants. Regarding Issue No. 3 no evidence was produced by the respondents in relation to the objection raised by the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased (a) Rs. 1800/- per month and from this amount ⅓ deduction has been made towards personal expenses of the deceased. After applying multiplier of 16 under this head loss from the income on account of death of the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,57,400/- has been awarded. In my opinion for a 'Karigar' minimum wages at least (a) Rs. 70/- per day should be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding compensation looking to the dependency of the family members. The deceased was 28 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied instead of multiplier of 16. The enhancement in compensation requires to be made after making necessary calculations, considering the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 2100/-per month and making 1 /3 deductions towards personal expenses form the income of the deceased, this amount which comes after applying multiplier of 18 as per Second Schedule of the MV Act is as under : 2100 x ⅓ x 18 x 12 = 3,02,400/ 14. The appellants, therefore, entitled to receive enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,29,400/- (Rs. 3,02,400+Rs. 27,000/-) instead of Rs. 2,57,400/-. The appellants are also entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of award as determined by the learned Tribunal. 15. In the result, this misc. appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 18.1.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims 'Tribunal, Bharatpur in Claim Case No. 170/1999 stands modified to the extent of Rs. 3,29,400/- instead of Rs. 2,57,400/-. The appellants shall also be entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount from the date of impugned award as determined by the learned Tribunal. CMA No. 1034/2003 Smt. Sharda & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 171/1999: 16. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal on 15.9.1999 by the appellants-claimants who are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased. CMA No. 1034/2003 Smt. Sharda & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 171/1999: 16. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal on 15.9.1999 by the appellants-claimants who are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased. It was averred in the claim petition that in the accident which took placed on 28.8.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent driver, Natha aged 35 years engaged in the work of building construction and earring Rs. 5000/- per month died. The respondent No. 3 is the driver of the bus and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are owner of the bus No. RJ-05-P-0221 did not contest the claim petition. The respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petition and raised objections. The learned Tribunal after framing necessary issues, recorded evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,72,400/- feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award, this misc. appeal has been filed. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that multiplier of 16 has been applied in this" case whereas multiplier of 17 was required to be applied in the present case. It has also been submitted that income of the deceased has been assessed at the lower side. 18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned 'Tribunal passed a reasoned award, therefore, no interference is required to be made. 19. 1 have considered the submissions made before me, perused the impugned judgment/award. 20. It is to be seen that factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver has been amply proved by the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 1800/- per month, which in my opinion is at the lower side and needs to be enhanced by adding Rs. 300/- considering per day wage of a labour @ Rs. 70/- per day at the relevant time. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was not exceeding 35 years therefore; multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. After applying multiplier of 17 and after making ⅓ deduction from the income of the deceased the dependency amount which comes is as under: 2100X ⅓ X 17X 12 = Rs. 2,85,600/ 21. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was not exceeding 35 years therefore; multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. After applying multiplier of 17 and after making ⅓ deduction from the income of the deceased the dependency amount which comes is as under: 2100X ⅓ X 17X 12 = Rs. 2,85,600/ 21. The appellants therefore, entitled to receive enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,27,600/- (Rs. 2,85,600/- + Rs. 42,000/-) instead of Rs. 2,72,400/-. The appellants are also entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount from the date of award as determined by the learned Tribunal. 22. In the result, this misc. appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 18.1.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims 'Tribunal, Bharatpur in Claim Case No. 171/1999 stands modified to the extent of Rs. 3,27,600/- instead of Rs. 2,72,400/-. The appellants shall also be entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount from the date of impugned award as determined by the learned Tribunal. CMS No. 1037/2003 Smt. Jagni & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 180/1999: 23. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal, Bharatpur on 29.9.1999 by the appellants-claimants who are widow and children of the deceased. It was averred in the claim petition that Shri Prbhati died in a bus accident which took place on 28.8.1999 because the bus was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and while the driver of the bus was overtaking another motor vehicle the bus dashed against the railing of a bridge and fell down into a river. It was also stated that the deceased Prabhati was 50 years of age and was a milk vendor earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month. The claim was contested by respondent No. 4-Insurance Company. The learned 'Tribunal after framing necessary issues, recorded evidence and hearing both sides awarded compensation of Rs. 1,90,400/-, feeling dissatisfied by the impugned award this misc. appeal has been filed. 24. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that monthly income has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1800/- per month which is at the lower side and needs to be enhanced. It has further been contended that multiplier of 13 in this case is required to be applied instead of multiplier of 11. 25. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that monthly income has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1800/- per month which is at the lower side and needs to be enhanced. It has further been contended that multiplier of 13 in this case is required to be applied instead of multiplier of 11. 25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned award is a reasoned one; therefore, no interference is required to be made. 26. 1 have considered the submissions made before me. Perused the impugned judgment/award. 27. The dispute has been raised in the present matter is in relation to quantum of compensation. The deceased was 50 years of age and no satisfactory evidence in relation to selling milk is available on record, therefore, in my opinion the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed and ⅓ deduction form the monthly income of the deceased has rightly been made. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that income has not correctly been assessed is not tenable in the absence of evidence. The another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that multiplier of 13 is required to be applied is also not sustainable for the reason that upto 50 years multiplier of 11 is to be applied. In the instant case, multiplier of 11 has rightly been applied. I do not find any illegality in the impugned award, which may need enhancement of compensation. There appears no merit in this misc. appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, this misc. appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The impugned award passed in relation to death of Shri Prabhati is maintained. CMA. No. 1041 /2003 Madan Lal & Ors. v. Dinesh Chand & Ors. Claim Case No. 182/1999: 29. The claimants-appellants who are husband and minor children of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 29.9.1999 with the averments that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver. Smt. Angoori died in the bus accident which took place on 28.8.1999. It was also averred that Smt. Angoori was doing the work of knitting and tailoring etc and her monthly income was Rs. 4800/- per month. Smt. Angoori died in the bus accident which took place on 28.8.1999. It was also averred that Smt. Angoori was doing the work of knitting and tailoring etc and her monthly income was Rs. 4800/- per month. In all total claim was made in the claim petition of Rs. 22,85,000/- The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 driver and owner of the bus did not appear to contest the claim petition. The, respondent. No. 4 raised objection in the written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal after framing necessary issues and after recording evidence heard both sides and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,07,000/- vide impugned award dated 18.1.2003, feeling dissatisfied with the award, this misc. appeal has been filed. 30. It has been contended that by the evidence, it was proved that the deceased was doing knitting work and was doing tailoring work also, therefore, the learned 'Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- per month. 31. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that no satisfactory evidence was produced before the learned Tribunal to show that she was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 1500/- per month, which is in the facts, and circumstances of the case is reasonable and requires no interference by this Court. 32. 1 have considered the submissions made before me, perused the impugned judgment/award. 33. The learned Tribunal while considering the issue in relation to award of compensation recorded its findings that the witnesses produced have exaggerated the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal further found that no person in evidence was produced to show that deceased ever did the work of tailoring. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire evidence applied multiplier of 15 which appears to be proper. The learned Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs. 2,07,000/- which is adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any illegality in the impugned award, which may need enhancement of compensation. There appears no merit in this misc. appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 34. In the result, this misc. appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 2,07,000/- which is adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any illegality in the impugned award, which may need enhancement of compensation. There appears no merit in this misc. appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 34. In the result, this misc. appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The impugned award passed in relation to death of Smt. Angoori is maintained.Appeal Nos. 1036/2003, 1035/2003, 1034/2003 partly allowed and Appeal Nos. 1037/2003, 1041/2003 dismissed. *******