S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. Jagan Nath Vermani was killed in an accident caused by Car No. MYB-7096 belonging to Respondent No. 2 on the Mathura Road on 10-5-1968. The deceased was going on his motor-cycle No. DLW-3756 from Delhi Gate towards Lajpat Nagar. The car in question came from opposite direction in great speed, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the motor-cycle. As a result of the impact the left side clutch liver was broken; the seat carrier and the looking glass were damaged; the shocker and the front mudguard were damaged Dr. S.S. Kaushal, PW-6 who conducted the post-mortem stated that there was effusion of blood in the frontal and parietal region. The frontal, both temporal and the occipital, bones were fractured and that the fissured fracture extended to the base of the skull. 2nd to 7th ribs on the left side were fractured and the left lung was also bruised. Jagan Nath Vermani died due to the said grievous injuries. On the basis of eye witnesses' evidence, the plan of the scene of the accident was prepared by the police. The nature of damage caused to the motor-cycle and the injuries sustained by the deceased, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. MYB-7096 that the accident took place and the death occurred. The accident was caused by Respondent No. 1 during the course of employment of Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 3 is the insurance company. It appears that the insurance company contested the matter before the Tribunal on behalf of itself and the owner of the car. In this Court also the counsel for the insurance company appeared for both. It must, thereforee, be assumed that the insurance company had accepted unlimited liability.
2. The deceased was 36 years at the time of the accident. He was working as an L.D.C. with the salary of Rs. 326/- in Ministry of Education. PW-3 is an Assistant in the Ministry of Education. He has deposed before the Tribunal that the juniors of the deceased were promoted in 1970. and he would have been also promoted in March 1970. On promotion his salary would have been Rs. 370/-. The deceased was only 36 years old. The Tribunal rightly took the multiplier of 22 for the purposes of determining the compensation. It is justified because 58 is the age of retirement. Even if it is assumed that his salary was Rs. 325/- per month it can safely be assumed that he was contributing Rs. 250/- towards his family consisting of himself, the mother, the wife and three minor children. The first promotion was already due to him by the time the claim petition came for hearing before the Tribunal. The pay scales of the Government servants have changed from time to time with the recommendations of Third Pay Commission and there is rise in D.A. at regular intervals. Considering these aspects of the matter, the normal income of the deceased would have been at least double by the time this appeal is being heard. The figure of compensation would be at a much higher side. I have thereforee no hesitation in accepting the claim of Rs. 75,000/- in the petition. The appellants are also awarded 9% simple interest from March 1970. The counsel for the respondent states that a sum of Rs. 19,635/-awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants. The simple interest at 9% shall be paid at Rs. 75,000/- from March 1970 to 4th April 1973 and (at the same rate of interest) on Rs. 55, 365/- from 5th April 1973 till the date of payment. The Insurance Company shall draw a cheque for the principal amount as well as the interest and costs in the name of the claimants and deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court within two months from today. The Registrar shall issue notice to the claimants and hand over the cheque. The appeal is allowed with cost. Counsel fee at Rs. 1,000/-