TAPEN SEN, J.

(1) THIS appeal arises out of the award dated 16. 1. 1988 passed by mr. S. S. Chahal, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Patiala in M. A. C. T. Case No. 22 of 3. 4. 1987. The claimant-appellant No. 1 (N. Leelawati) is the widow, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and the appellant No. 4 is the son of the deceased.

(2) ON 22. 3. 1987, K. Thankappan (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the deceased), who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 was traveling on his scooter on the chandigarh-Rajpura Road. As he crossed the bus stop in village Chhat, a truck coming from the side of Rajpura bearing No. HYA 3997 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 herein hit his scooter, as a result of which the deceased fell down and received injuries. He was removed to the command Hospital at Chandigarh in an injured condition. From the Command hospital, Chandigarh he was then shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh where he died.

(3) THE respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No. 2 is the driver while respondent No. 3 is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Panchkula. Deceased was 41 years at the time of accident. As per claimants, he was getting a salary of Rs. 2,067. 40. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation.

(4) BEFORE the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Patiala, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim on the grounds that the accident never occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the truck was being driven at a very slow speed on the left side and that no accident took place while the truck was being driven by him and as such the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

(5) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was, "whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased" This issue was answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of the claimants.

(6) ISSUE No. 2 was,

"whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYA 3997 driven by raunki Ram"

This issue was also decided in the affirmative holding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Raunki Ram.

(7) ISSUE No. 3 was,

"if issue No. 2 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation If so, how much and from whom"

(8) THIS is the crucial issue and on the basis of reasonings given on the basis of the statement of one Devindra Sharma, pilot Officer AW 2, the learned Motor accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion, that according to the records, the deceased was getting Rs. 1,379 p. m as salary as against the claim of appellants to the effect that he was drawing Rs. 2,100 p. m.

(9) HAVING held so, the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased must be spending Rs. 379 p. m. on himself. Thus, according to the tribunal, the monthly dependency came to rs. 1,000 and the annual dependency to rs. 12,000.

(10) HAVING held the annual dependency to be Rs. 12,000, Tribunal then took note of the age of deceased as being 41 years and applying multiplier of 18, it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,16,000 (Rs. 12,000 x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000).

(11) HAVING thus awarded a sum of rs. 2,16,000 in all, the Claims Tribunal made the said amount payable by all the respondents.

(12) WHILE calculating, Claims Tribunal bifurcated the aforementioned amount in the following manner: (a) For appellant No. 1 = (N. Leela wati) (b) For appellant No. 2 = (Rajeshri) (c) For appellant No. 3 = (Jaishri) (d) For appellant No. 4 = (Krishna Prasad)It was also held that the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till payment of the awarded amount.

(13) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has assailed the award on various grounds including that Tribunal did not take into consideration that the deceased, at the time of his death, was actually getting Rs. 1,379 towards salary plus local allowances to the extent of Rs. 170 plus Rs. 60 as childrens education allowance. total thereof every month comes to Rs. 1,609. He also stated that the deceased was entitled to a sum of rs. 583 p. m. for other allowances. To the extent of Rs. 583, which though was not being actually paid, the same was nevertheless being spent by the government as the deceased was in defence service and these included free accommodation, free food, free clothing and free canteen facilities. It was also stated that the aforementioned facts had been brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide Exh. Al, which was proved by Devindra Sharma, Pilot Officer aw 2. The learned counsel further submits that in fact appellant No. 1, AW 1, also stated that the deceased was getting rs. 2,100 p. m. in cash and he used to send a sum of Rs. 1,500 p. m. for his family.

(14) THERE is force in what the learned counsel has submitted. The Tribunal has taken note of the salary of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 1,379 p. m. but it seems to have totally ignored the fact that the deceased was in the defence service where, it is common knowledge, that persons living within the mess are given facilities, such as free accommodation and ration, etc. In this context, it would therefore be relevant to quote statement of Devindra sharma, Pilot Officer, Chandigarh, AW 2, in verbatim which reads thus:

"k. Thankappan was employed in the air Force as a Sergeant. He died in a motor vehicle accident in 1987. I have brought the record relating to his salary which he was getting from the Air Force authority. According to this record, he was getting Rs. 1,379 p. m. as salary. In addition to this salary he was earning rs. 170 p. m. as local allowances and rs. 60 as children education allowance. Exh. A1 is the copy of the particulars of the salary. He was having free accommodation and free ration. "

He was not getting any scooter allowance. The particulars mentioned above relate to his last pay drawn. I cannot say how much pension widow of K. Thankappan will get. The date of birth of K. Thankappan was 24. 6. 1944. Thus from the perusal of the aforementioned statement, it is evident that besides rs. 1,379 p. m. as salary, the deceased was getting Rs. 170 as local allowances plus rs. 60 as childrens education allowance. This amount comes to Rs. 230 and when added to Rs. 1,379, the same totals up to rs. 1,609.

(15) IT is also seen from the records of the case that a pay certificate was also brought on record vide Exh. Al. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the deceased was a living in member of sncos Mess. Exh. Al further points out that the local allowance to the extent of rs. 170 was actually being paid. However, a sum of Rs. 583 has also been mentioned as being allowance towards ration money, c ILQ, conservancy charges and conveyance allowance. This amount of Rs. 583 as per the own statement of appellant No. 1 read with Exh. A1 was not actually being paid but nevertheless the deceased, being an in house member of a Mess, was entitled to the same. This court therefore discards the sum of Rs. 583 but includes the following amount as the actual payments which the deceased used to receive and they are:



(a)

Salary

Rs. 1,379

(b)

Local allowance

Rs. 170

(c)

Children education allowance

Rs. 60

Total

Rs. 1,609







Thus the findings of the Tribunal to the extent that the salary of the deceased was only Rs. 1,379 appears to be incorrect and according to this court the salary of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 1,609 p. m. , although according to the learned counsel, the monthly dependency should have been only Rs. 1,500. To that extent the award of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal deserves to be interfered with.

(16) LEARNED counsel further submits that as per the judgment of the Honble apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the future prospects of advancement in life and career has not been taken into consideration. According to him, these should have been taken by adding the salary drawn at the time of death plus the notional salary that the deceased would have drawn at the time of his superannuation and then the total sums should have been added and then divided by two to reach to a figure for purposes of taking into consideration the salary of the deceased.

(17) IT is true at the time of death the deceased was 41 years. If the deceased would have lived then he would have normally superannuated 17 years thereafter at the age of 58 years. In other words, at the time of retirement one can safely presume that his salary would have doubled itself. Thus Rs 1,609 plus Rs. 3,218 comes to rs. 4,827. Thus, the salary component should have been calculated at Rs. 4,827 p. m. as per the formula laid down by the honble Apex Court in the aforementioned case. When the aforementioned amount of Rs. 4,827 is divided by two, the figure arrived at is Rs. 2,413. 50. This should have been taken to be salary of the deceased for purposes of computing the compensation. Out of this amount, it is natural to expect that the deceased would have spent a sum of Rs. 500 p. m. on himself. Therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,913. 50. The award, therefore, is modified only to the extent indicated above and the rest of the award is not interfered with. In other words, the annual dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,913. 50 comes to Rs. 22,962. By applying the multiplier of 18, the sum comes to Rs. 4,13,316. Thus the awarded amount of Rs. 2,16,000 is enhanced to rs. 4,13,316. Interest component ordered by the Tribunal shall be the same.

(18) THE appeal is accordingly allowed and the award modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.