S.K. Seth, J.
1. There is no dispute between the parties about the following facts at the bearing of the present appeals: One Chandrabhan sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that took place on 19-6-1972. He died as a result of the said injuries on 20-6-1972. Appellant no. 1, Wholesale Consumers Co-operative Societies Rewa, was the owner of the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident. Appellant No. 3, Gullu, was driving the said vehicle and on behalf of the appellant no. 1 at the relevant time. The accident took place due to negligent driving of the appellant No. 2.
2. There is also no dispute between the parties about the following further facts at the hearing of the present appeal: Deceased Chandrabhan was an agriculturist and maintained himself and his family by cultivating about sixty acres of land that stood in bis name and that of his brother. He was aged about 55 years on the date of his death. Claimant No. 1, Sahdiya, was the widow of the deceased. Claimants nos. 2 and 3, Kum. Jamuni (15 years) and Bhuvneshwar (13 years) were minor children of the deceased. For their livelihood the three claimants depended on the deceased.
3. In their application made to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ' the three claimants claimed Rs. 51,500/- as compensation in respect of the motor accident involving the death of Chandrabhan. The Tribunal vide its award dated 17-9-1980 determined Rs. 12,500/- as the total compensation and directed the two appellants to pay the said amount to the claimants together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. It is being aggrieved by it that the appellants have filed the present appeal in this Court. So also, being aggrieved by rejection of part of their claim, the claimants have preferred a cross-objection. x
4. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the evidence produced in the case, the Tribunal committed no error in finding that the deceased was earning an income of about Rs. 3,000/- per year from personal cultivation of his lands. Again, the Tribunal committed no error in finding that out of the said income the deceased would have spent about one half i.e. Rs. 1,500/- per annum on the three claimants. It is only while choosing the appropriate multiplier that a slight error was committed by the Tribunal. It was in the evidence that though Chandrabhan was aged about 55 years on the date of his death he was maintaining good health. As he had to bring up his minor child, and marry his daughter, there was no reason to think that he would not have continued to work at least for another seven years. In the circumstances, instead of 'five' the Tribunal should have chosen the multiplier of seven.'
5. On the basis of 'seven' as the multiplier, the total amount of compen sation for loss of dependency worked out to Rs. 10,500/-. In the circum stances, taking into consideration the uncertainties of life and the accelerated payment of a lump sum, as against the amount of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the tribunal, the claimants should have been awarded an amount of Rs. 7,500- for their claim Under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.
6. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal awarded an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimants as compensation for loss caused to the estate of the deceased. The said claim was justified Under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The amount represented the damages for the mental agony, suffering and loss of expectations of life concerning the deceased. That being so, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R M.K. Veluswami and Ors. : 1SCR929 there was no duplication in awarding the said amount to the claimants Under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The quantum of the said damages was quite reasonable and did not call for interference. It is true that the claimants failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of the fact that the deceased had any money with him at the time of his death and the same was lost as a result of the accident. In fact, there was a clear admission made by the elaimant no. 1 in her evidence that she did not know as to what happened to Rs. 1,500/- which the deceased had taken with him to Allahabad a couple of days prior to the accident, In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the claim of Rs. 1,500/- on the particular count Under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The appellants could not be held liable to pay the said amount to the claimants.
7. But, then, in spite of the partial success of both the parties to the extent mentioned above, the total amount of compensation claimable by the claimants works out to Rs. 12,500/- which is the amount awarded by the tribunal to the claimants by the impugned award. In the circumstances, the appeal, as also the cross-objection, deserve to be dismissed.
8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the respondents also fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs both in the appeal as also in the costs objection.