Itwari vs Guru Bachan Singh and Others

B.M. Lal, J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of the award.

The claimant/appellant is the father of the deceased Roopchand who was aged about 22 years at time of his death in the alleged accident and he was earning Rs. 135/- per month as he was working in Beekay Engineering Corporation at Bhilai.

The Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim petition of the appellant awarded compensation for Rs. 4500/- against which the present appeal is filed for enhancement of the award amount.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the award of compensation is too meagre looking to the facts and circum stances of the case. The learned Counsel also contended that the fact relating to the income of the deceased Roopchand Rs. 135/- per month is not disputed, it is also not disputed that at the time of Roopchand''s death the claimant/appellant who is the father of deceased Roopchand was 48 years of age and even if Roopchand had married, he would have helped his father by paying Rs. 60 to 70/- per month. Learned Counsel submitted that ignoring these material facts, the learned Claims Tribunal applying a wrong multiplier has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs. 4500/- which is liable to be enhanced suitably.

In The Hindustan Ideal Ins. Company Ltd. Vs. Pokaoti Ankiah and Others , while ascertaining the extent of damages, reference has been made to a publication entitled Mayme & Mcgragor on Damages, Twelfth Edition (1961) para 813 which runs as follows:

The Courts have evolved a particular method for calculating the value of dependency, or the amount of pecuniary benefit that the dependant could reasonably expect to have received. The basis is the amount of pecuniary benefit that the deceased would have conferred upon the dependant in the future. This may be calculated by taking the annual figure of the dependency, whether stemming from money or goods provided or services rendered, and multiplying it by the number of years that the dependency might reasonably be expected to last. This latter figure is generally referred to as the multiplier. The resulting amount must then be scaled down by reason of two considerations, first that a lump sum is being given instead of the various sums over years, and second that contingencies might have arisen to cut off the benefit prematurely. The method adopted by the Courts to scale down the starting figure is to take the figure intact of present annual dependency and reduce only the multiplier. And if the present annual dependency, i.e., the actual pecuniary benefit being received at the death, was liable to increase or decrease in the future, as where a husband or father was likely in course of time to attain a higher salary or fall to a lower one, then the practice of the Courts is still to allow for this, not by changing the figure of present annual dependency, but by altering, up or down, the multiplier.

In The Hindustan Ideal Ins. Co.''s case (supra) the principle laid down by Lord Wright in Dunes ani others v. Powell Duffryn Associated Colliers Ltd. L.R. (1942) A.C. 601 have been referred to, thus:

The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years'' purchase, that sums, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt.

In The Hindustan Ideal Ins. Co.''s case (supra) reference, was also made to paragraph 628 of the said book on Damages where in case of death of unmarried children it was observed as follows:

One important factor in the case of unmarried children is a possibility that they will marry and that consequently their contributions to their parents will be reduced or cease altogether, in the case of a son by reason of bis new obligation to support his wife; in the case of a daughter by reason of her ceasing work and starting gratuitous services for her husband.

This being so, applying the said principle to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant/father of the deceased if taken to be 48 years of age at the time of alleged incident and considering that he would live upto the age of 70 years of age, as longevity of an average Indian held to be 70 years in several decisions by the apex court of the land, then certainly 22 years period of appellant''s dependency on his son can be taken into account. Therefore, as it appears in the evidence that the deceased Roopchand, even after his marriage would have helped his father by paying Rs. 60 to 70/- per month a sum of Rs. 60/- per month may be valued towards pecuniary damage to the appellant; thus the multiplier in the instant case would be=period of dependency i.e. 22 years x Rs. 60 x 12 months (Rs. 60 x 22 years x 12 months) which comes to Rs. 15,840/-, say Rs. 15,000/- in lump sum. Therefore, the learned claims tribunal should have awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 4,500/- which is too low and is not supported by any cogent multiplier.

From the discussions aforesaid, the award impugned is modified to the extent indicated above, i.e. instead of Rs. 4,500/- the award is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- in lump sum which shall also carry an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of award i.e. 10-5-1979.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.