JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nishant Singh appears for the respondents. 2. The three connected first appeal from orders under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Allahabad dated 5.8.1996 by which he awarded an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation to the father, mother, widow and infant son of the deceased Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, who died on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident, near Shobhit Auto Centre, Stanley Road, Allahabad on 13.12.1986 at 11.30 a.m. with Bus No. USS 1296 owned by Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh-the respondent and insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The accident claim was filed by the father, mother and widow and infant child, who was aged three months at the time of filing of the claim petitions separately under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 6 lacs as maintenance of the dependency from the legal practice of the deceased, aged 50 years and was practicing lawyer of the High Court. 3. Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh, the owner of the vehicle has filed the Appeal No. 889 of 1996, challenging the award both on the findings of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus as well as the award of compensation on 22nd November, 1996. 4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle has filed the Appeal No. 879 of 1996, against the award on 19th November, 1996 in which while admitting the appeal and issuing notice and summoning the records the learned Single Judge passed an order on 22.11.1996, while directing the stay matter to be listed in the first week of March, 1997, that if the appellant (insurance company) deposits a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- within a fortnight in the Court below the execution case filed shall remain stayed, until further orders. The order was modified after hearing the parties to the effect that the appellant shall deposit Rs. 1 lac within three months out of which the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- without furnishing any security, on the amount being deposited to be invested in term deposit schemes with a nationalized bank. The term deposit was directed to continue till further order of the Court. 1 lac within three months out of which the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- without furnishing any security, on the amount being deposited to be invested in term deposit schemes with a nationalized bank. The term deposit was directed to continue till further order of the Court. The Court further directed that the Tribunal will insure that the amount is released in favour of the claimant respondents through bank accounts. 5. In the appeal filed by Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh, the owner of the vehicle on 22nd November, 1996, notices were issued to the parties on 26.11.1996 with directions to deposit Rs. 40,000/-. The order was modified on 12.1.2000 providing the appellant to deposit a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- within three months. The amount of Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the appellant in pursuance to the order dated 26.11.1996 was directed to be released to the claimant respondents without demanding any security or surety. On the amount being deposited the same was directed to be invested in Term Deposit Scheme in nationalized bank. The term deposit was directed to continue till further orders. The Tribunal was to ensure release in favour of the claimant respondents through bank account. 6. The claimant appellants filed First Appeal From Order No. 59 of 2000 on 22.11.1996 with delay of 3 days, when presented for enhancement of the award. The delay was condoned and the appeal was given regular number with directions to connect it with first appeal from orders filed by the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. 7. During the pendency of these appeals Shri Sri Niwas Mani Tripathi, the father and Shri Janhvi Tripathi, the mother of the deceased have died. The substitution application of the father and the substitution application of mother was allowed on 27.1.2005 and 30.8.2007 respectively with directions to connect the appeal with appeals filed by the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. 8. It is submitted by Shri S.V. Goswami appearing for the widow and the son of the deceased, who are appellants in First Appeal From order No. 59 of 2000 for enhancement of the award that the paper book was prepared and was filed in May, 2005. Since thereafter he has been pursuing the matter for hearing. 8. It is submitted by Shri S.V. Goswami appearing for the widow and the son of the deceased, who are appellants in First Appeal From order No. 59 of 2000 for enhancement of the award that the paper book was prepared and was filed in May, 2005. Since thereafter he has been pursuing the matter for hearing. Even after the substitution applications were allowed, the matter could not be listed for hearing and when listed it was adjourned for several reasons. In the meantime, the widow and the son of the deceased, who died in the accident in the year 1986, have not been paid any amount towards compensation. 9. The appeals were listed for hearing on several dates from July, 2012 to January, 2013 and were adjourned on the request of the counsel for the insurance company. These were finally argued after securing the presence of Shri Nishant Singh, the counsel for the insurance company on 29.1.2013, and the judgment was reserved. The counsel for the owner of the vehicle was eluded appearance inspite of his name listed on the cause list, on several dates fixed in the appeals for hearing and thus we did not have the benefit of hearing him. 10. The deceased was a lawyer practicing in the High Court at Allahabad. On 13.12.1986 at about 11.30 a.m. near Shobhit Auto Centre on Stanley road, P.S. Colonel Ganj, Allahabad he met with an accident with Bus No. USS 1296 , when he was coming from the side of Mayo Hall on his scooter. He suffered fatal injuries causing his death in the hospital. The claim petitions were filed by father and mother and widow and son, who was three months old separately on proforma under Section 166 alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lacs for which claim was lodged with the owner and the Insurance Company through registered notice dated 27.3.1987. The claim petition was filed on 27.4.1987. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month from legal practice, which was not taxable. He was not paying income tax. The death was caused due to serious head injury suffered in the accident at Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. They spent Rs. 1000/- on life saving drugs and blood and claimed Rs. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month from legal practice, which was not taxable. He was not paying income tax. The death was caused due to serious head injury suffered in the accident at Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. They spent Rs. 1000/- on life saving drugs and blood and claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation on account of premature death of the deceased, out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed for father and mother and Rs. 2 lacs for the widow and the son and Rs. 1,50,000/- for medical expenditure and span of life shortened for the father and mother, Rs. 1 lac for ruining the matrimonial life of the widow and depriving the child of father’s care, academic career and property. 11. In paragraphs 23 of the claim petition, it was alleged that on 13.12.1986 at about 11.30 a.m. under P.S. Colonel Ganj, Allahabad near Shobhit Auto Centre, Stanley Road, Allahabad the driver of the Bus No. USS 1296 rashly and negligently in high speed crushed Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, Advocate, the only son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who was coming from the side of Mayo Hall Crossing on the scooter, absolutely on his left side, thus causing fatal injuries to him. The accident occurred solely on account of rash, negligent and high speed driving of the bus in question hence the OPs are liable to compensate the claimants for the loss they suffered on account of accident. 12. Shri Shiv Bahadur, the owner of the bus denied the averments made in the claim petition. He denied that any accident was caused by his bus. He denied that the deceased was a practicing Advocate. The accident did not happen in District Allahabad under P.S. Colonel Ganj. The vehicle was insured by the policy issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. from 1.9.1986, which was valid upto 31.8.1987 and that compensation has been claimed on higher side. 13. The Insurance Company put the burden on claimants to prove the accident and rash and negligent driving fo the driver of the bus. It was stated that the owner of the vehicle has not disclosed policy particulars of the vehicle and the accident to the insurance company and has denied the accident. 13. The Insurance Company put the burden on claimants to prove the accident and rash and negligent driving fo the driver of the bus. It was stated that the owner of the vehicle has not disclosed policy particulars of the vehicle and the accident to the insurance company and has denied the accident. The bus was not driven rashly and negligently and that the accident did not take place in the manner, it was alleged to have happened. The insurance company further alleged that the claim for compensation was highly excessive, inflated, imaginary and untenable. The Tribunal famed five issues as follows : “(1) Whether the accident dated 13.12.1986 in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Motor Vehicle Nos. USS 1296 by its driver, causing the death of Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, as claimed in the petition? (2) Whether at the relevant time, the motor vehicle in question was not be in driven under a valid permit and by a person duly licensed and authorised to drive the same, as pleaded by the opposite party in its written statement? (3) Whether the deceased was aged and his income was pleaded in the petition by the claimant? (4) Whether the Motor Vehicle No. USS 1296 was insured with the opposite party No. 2, as claimed by the claimants? If so its effect? (5) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation in the petition and if so to what amount?” 14. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal relying upon the statement of Shri Uma Kand Tripathi-PW-2, eye-witness of the accident, who had evacuated the deceased and had stated that he had seen the accident in which Shri Anand Mani Tripathi going on his side of Phaphamau from the side of Mayo Hall on Stanley road driving the scooter on the left side was knocked down by the bus and was dragged upto 20 paces. The driver after the accident brought the vehicle on the left side of the road and left it there. The witness extracted the deceased from beneath the vehicle. He was taken to District (Beli) Hospital and the father of the deceased was informed. The witness also lodged the police report of the occurrence. In the cross-examination he stated that on the fateful day, he had seen the deceased at Stanley Road at a distance of 50-60 paces. The witness extracted the deceased from beneath the vehicle. He was taken to District (Beli) Hospital and the father of the deceased was informed. The witness also lodged the police report of the occurrence. In the cross-examination he stated that on the fateful day, he had seen the deceased at Stanley Road at a distance of 50-60 paces. The Trial Court relied upon the deposition of the eye-witness and found that during cross-examination nothing particular could be elicited from him to discredit his testimony. The statement of the witness was corroborated by the first information report lodged at 3.05 p.m. at P.S. Colonel Ganj on 13.12.1986 in which it was clearly stated that the Motor Vehicle No. USS 1296 was driving rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road. Relying upon this statement of the eye-witness in the first information report, the chick FIR, photocopy of the panchnama, postmortem report and the death certificate, the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in the affirmative. 15. On issue No. 2 the Tribunal found that there was no evidence in support of the plea that the bus was being plied without a valid permit and the driver did not hold valid license. On issue No. 4 the Tribunal held that neither the claimant nor the owner fo the vehicle has disclosed the insurance policy, particulars of the vehicle and in the absence of the same it was denied that the vehicle was insured and covered against the risk. The father of the deceased and the eye-witness did not make any statement on the point and in the circumstances in the absence of any proof of the insurance of the Motor Vehicle No. USS 1296 with the New India Assurance Co. the issue was decided in negation. 16. On issue No. 5 on the quantum of compensation the Tribunal relying upon High School certificate of the deceased in which his date of birth was given as 1.7.1955, held that he was 30-31 years old on the date of accident on 31.12.1986 and on such income he held that from the evidence of the father of the deceased it was proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 1400-1500/- per month from his practice. He was initially practicing as junior to Shri Rama Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate, and for last 2-3 years before his death he had started practice independently. 1400-1500/- per month from his practice. He was initially practicing as junior to Shri Rama Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate, and for last 2-3 years before his death he had started practice independently. The number of cases handled by him were not given except that he had about 60-70 clients. 17. The Tribunal held that normally the father would not have knowledge about the practice of his son and in the circumstances the earning of Rs. 1400-1500/-, which is very modest for an Advocate of the High Court was accepted specially in view of the fact that his father, claimant No. 1 was himself a practicing Advocate in the High Court. He was a Government Advocate for about 21-22 years in the District Courts as well as the High Court. His grand father is retired IAS officer and held several important posts including the post of Collector and as member of U.P. Public Service Commission and Vice-Chancellor of Varanasi Sanskrit Vidyalaya. He was also member of U.P. Vidhan Parishad for about 12 years. Two young brothers of the father of the deceased were serving as Lt. General in the army and DIG in police and that his income from legal profession was estimated at Rs. 16,000/- per year. The Tribunal also found that the income of the deceased from agriculture of his share would be about 2000/- per month, which he used to look after through his servants on his agricultural lands in Distt. Gonda from Allahabad. On this point the Tribunal relied upon the statement of the father of the deceased, who was responsible member of the Bar. The income of the deceased was thus assessed to Rs. 36,000/-, which included Rs. 16,000/- from legal profession and Rs. 20,000/-from agriculture and for which no income tax was liable to be paid. The Tribunal, thereafter, held that it would be reasonable to hold that the deceased was maintaining his family from his earning, would be contributing 75% of his earning for maintenance of his family, which worked out Rs. 27,000/- per year. Thereafter making allowance of 1/4th of the income, which the family of the deceased was receiving from his agriculture the yearly dependency of the family was worked out at Rs. 23,500/-. 27,000/- per year. Thereafter making allowance of 1/4th of the income, which the family of the deceased was receiving from his agriculture the yearly dependency of the family was worked out at Rs. 23,500/-. The Tribunal, thereafter, relied upon Lakshman Singh v. Gurumith Kaur, 1979 ACJ 170 , a Full Bench judgment of Punjab High Court; Himanchal Road Transport Corporation v. Pandit Jai Ram and others, 1980 ACJ I, judgment by Himachal Pradesh High Court and Mohan Lal v. Santi Devi, 1985 ACJ 205 and assessing the longevity of the family on the age of the grant father, who was alive and was aged 88 years and grand mother aged 83 years applied the multiplier of 25 to work out the compensation at Rs. 5,81,250/- and thereafter adding Rs. 3000/- for loss of expectation of life worked out the compensation at Rs. 5,84,250/-. The Tribunal also awarded the loss of affection and care besides mental agony, loss of parental care, and matrimonial consortium for which he awarded Rs. 50,000/- quantifying total compensation at Rs. 6,34,250/- but since the claimants had demanded only Rs. 6 lacs, the compensation was worked out at Rs. 6 lacs out of which Rs. 2 lacs was directed to be paid to the father and mother and remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs to the widow and the son. The claimants were directed to be paid interest at 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of payment. 18. The owner of the vehicle filed an application to recall the order on the ground that the vehicle was insured and that the Tribunal has committed error apparent on the face of the record in recording the findings that the vehicle was not insured, whereas the policy number and the period of policy was clearly given in the written statement. 19. The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition as aforesaid on 30.3.1988 in the absence of any contest put up by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle applied for restoration on the ground that he was prevented from appearing in the matter. The Tribunal allowed the application and reheard the matter on which it gave a fresh award on 5.8.1996. 20. The owner of the vehicle applied for restoration on the ground that he was prevented from appearing in the matter. The Tribunal allowed the application and reheard the matter on which it gave a fresh award on 5.8.1996. 20. The Tribunal relied upon same evidence in holding that the accident was caused on rash and negligent driving of the bus with further finding on the same statement of eye-witnesses that the bus was caught at the spot, driver was also caught but he somehow escaped. The bus was handed over to the police. The Tribunal, thereafter, held relying upon insurance policy that the insurance was valid from 1.9.1986 to 31.8.1987, when accident was caused on 13.12.1986. The Insurance Company’s liability, however, under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the third party claim in the year 1986 was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 21. On the question of compensation the Tribunal reassessed the compensation on redetermination, relying on the judgment in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (1) TAC 323, which was rendered by the Supreme Court after the death in accident in the present case and which had settled the law with regard to quantification of the compensation. Relying upon the evidence on record and in holding that the deceased was a practicing Advocate and was also having 26.3 acres of land in Gonda, it was held that he was earning Rs. 16,000/- from legal practice and Rs. 20,000/- from agriculture and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount on his family, which included his wife and the newly born son, worked out the annual dependency at Rs. 24,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier of 10 on the age of the deceased at 31 years, the compensation was worked out at Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal, thereafter, added Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. Out of this total compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- a direction was issued that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 90,000/- will be paid by the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the widow and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the son, which will be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of 8 years. The fixed deposit receipt was directed to be handed over to the widow. 90,000/- will be paid by the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the widow and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the son, which will be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of 8 years. The fixed deposit receipt was directed to be handed over to the widow. The Tribunal also held the claimants are entitled to interest at 12% from the date of filing of the petition on 27.4.1987 but denied the interest for the period, when the claim petition had been dismissed. Out of the amount to be paid by the owner Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid to the father and the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the mother. 22. Shri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the father and mother died during the pendency of the appeal in the year 2005 and 2007 respectively leaving the widow and the son, who have not received any amount out of Rs. 1 lac deposited, and from which Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be paid to them. The widow and the son, who is now 26 years old have suffered silently, and have been deprived of all the pleasures of life. The son could not get the opportunity to study adequately as he did not get any amount from the compensation. He submits that the findings recorded both on the question of rash and negligent driving and the quantum of compensation do not suffer from any error of facts or law. 23. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the rash and negligent driving was not proved and that the compensation was awarded on higher side. The rate of interest has also been assessed on higher side at 12% per annum. 24. No one appears for the owner of the vehicle, who appears to be avoiding the appearance for hearing of the matter. 25. We have considered the submissions raised by learned counsel appearing for the insurance company against the award, which is to be paid by the insurance company and the arguments of Shri S.V. Goswami for enhancement of the award. 26. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of fact or law in recording findings regarding rash and negligent driving, which is based upon the statement of eye-witness. 26. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of fact or law in recording findings regarding rash and negligent driving, which is based upon the statement of eye-witness. Shri Rama Kant Tripathi, who had witnessed the accident had deposed that the deceased was going on scooter on his left side. He was about 50-60 paces away from the site of the accident. The driver of the bus was driving it rashly and negligently. The bus hit the deceased on which he was dragged for about 20 feet. The deceased was extracted from under the bus and was taken to hospital. The driver had ran away but the bus was apprehended and was handed over to the police. These findings are supported by the first information report, panchnama, and the postmortem report, which corroborate the accident, and the death of the deceased. There is no good ground to disbelieve the eye-witness, who was cross-examined but could not be shaken up and was believed by the Tribunal. The findings of rash and negligent driving of the bus does not require interference. 27. So far as findings with regard to insurance of the bus and the liability is concerned, the grounds taken by the insurance company that third party claim under Section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 limited the liability to Rs. 50,000/-, on the date of accident, also does not have any substance. The bus was covered by third party claims for which premium was also paid, which would include the compensation upto Rs. 1,50,000/-, even if no additional premium was paid to cover additional risk. 28. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, we do not find any error in the assessment made by the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal has found income of the Advocate, whose father was also practicing Advocate belong to respectable family, practicing independently after assisting a senior counsel for two years, assessed the income at Rs. 18,000/- per year. An Advocate of the High Court practicing for 3 to 4 years does not have a very high income. The assessment of income of Rs. 16,000/- per year, however, is reasonable at the age and practice of the deceased. 29. In the estimate of the income from professional there has to be some guess work. 18,000/- per year. An Advocate of the High Court practicing for 3 to 4 years does not have a very high income. The assessment of income of Rs. 16,000/- per year, however, is reasonable at the age and practice of the deceased. 29. In the estimate of the income from professional there has to be some guess work. In our view the guess work made by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error in law. 30. So far as agricultural income is concerned, it was admitted that the deceased was recorded tenure holder of 26.31 acres of land and that even if cost of labour, manure and seeds as stated in the grounds taken by the insurance company are reduced, the income of Rs. 20,000/- per year was not assessed on higher side. 31. The Tribunal erred in law in applying multiplier of 10, on the age of the deceased. According to the second schedule, as interpreted in New India Assurance Company v. Gopali, (2012) 4 TAC 353 (SC) (Para 18) after considering the ratio of the judgment in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 21, and considering the ratio of the cases in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , at the age of 31 years the multiplier of 16 will be applicable. 32. We, however, do not find any good ground to accept the submissions made by Shri S.V. Goswami that the compensation requires to be enhanced as the guess work made by the Tribunal on the professional income and income from agricultural is not excessive and appears to be reasonable on the evidence produced on record. 33. Further this is sufficient ground to interfere in the appeal filed for enhancement of the award to the extent that the interest would not be applicable for the period, when the claim was dismissed. We find that the restoration application is allowed only when the Court finds sufficient grounds for non-appearance of the claims, where the claimants have shown good and sufficient cause, they cannot be blamed or denied subsequently with the interest on the amount awarded to them as compensation. 34. The First Appeal From Order Nos. 879 of 1996 and 889 of 1996 are dismissed. 34. The First Appeal From Order Nos. 879 of 1996 and 889 of 1996 are dismissed. The first Appeal From Order No. 59 of 2000 is, however, allowed to the extent that on applying the multiplier on the income at Rs. 36,000/- as worked out by the Tribunal and deducting it by 1/3rd for the amount the deceased would have spent on himself and applying multiplier of 16 the compensation is worked at Rs. 3,64,000/-. On this reassessed compensation we add the amount of Rs. 40,000/- worked out by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to the widow, which will also include loss of father’s care to his son. The total compensation is thus worked out to Rs. 4,04,000/-. The interest at 12% will be payable on the entire amount of compensation from 27.4.1997, when the claim petition was filed. 35. The entire amount deposited in the Tribunal, which has not been paid to the widow or the son, who are claimant shall be paid by the Tribunal within a month from the date, when the application is made alongwith interest. The insurance company will be liable to pay the interest on the amount from the date of the application upto the date of deposit. The interest at 12% will be awarded on the amount, which has not been deposited by the insurance company on its liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the date of the application and on the entire remaining amount to be paid by the owner of the bus. We also direct here that since in the present case the accident happened in 1986, the Tribunal will ensure execution of the remaining amount of compensation under the award very expeditiously. The costs are quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be realised from the Insurance Company. ——————