AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2004 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1145 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sub Judge (MACT) Cuddalore, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,03,200/- as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the mother, brother and sister of the deceased S. Krishnamurthy, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 13.6.2002. The deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident that had occurred on 13.6.2002 at about 7.50 p.m. being hit by the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, awarded compensation as stated above. On going through the evidence, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the negligence was on the part of the bus driver and I do not find any warrant to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and accordingly, it is confirmed.
As regards the quantum of compensation, Mr. P. Jagdeeswaran, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that it is on the higher side and that the Tribunal erred in deducting l/3rd towards his personal expenses instead of 50 per cent, as it would be done in the case of a bachelor in complete disregard to the fact that he would have spent a substantial part of his earning for himself. The learned counsel would further submit that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is also improper and the proper multiplier should be 12, taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased, who was 52 years old at the time of the accident.
Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, the learned counsel for the Respondents urged that the deductions made from the income of the bachelor victim were justified and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also reasonable.
The deceased was a carpenter and was doing wood work contracts and according to the claimants, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. As there was no definite evidence, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs. 4,000/-, which in my view is not on the higher side and is reasonable.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in deducing only l/3rd from the earnings of the deceased, who was admittedly a bachelor at the time of the accident and that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, percent of the earnings has to be deducted in case of a bachelor.
It is not a rule of thumb that in each and every case of a death of a bachelor, 50 per cent of his income is necessarily required to be deducted on account of his personal expenses. Deduction on account of the personal expenses of the deceased from his established income at the time of his death, on the other hand, is required to be made to assess the dependency of the parents, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case.
I am supported in taking the view that the deductions from the income of the unmarried earning son or daughter by more than l/3rd to determine just compensation to the dependent parents may not be permissible by two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and Others, and Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, while dealing with the question, their Lordships had observed in the later case as follows:
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was 20 years of age and was a bachelor. His parents were aged 47 years and 42 years respectively. The deceased was studying in first year B.Com Course and he was also the proprietor of a business carried under the name and style of H.S. Traders and was an income tax assessee. The deceased had an income of Rs. 31,494 in his business and had paid the income tax on that. The Tribunal had erroneously deducted 50 per cent for his personal living expenses and the contribution to the family/dependency worked out to Rs. 15000/-p.a. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11, looking to the age of the parents and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,65,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that assessment made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court was totally erroneous. The incumbent was a bachelor, therefore, he could not spend 50 per cent of his income on himself. But three fourth of the income was contributed to the family and therefore, the dependency assessed by the Tribunal and by the High Court for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-was not correct. It was also submitted that the multiplier of 11 applied by the Tribunal was also not correct.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3 rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50 per cent was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3 rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family.
The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that selection of multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent and referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, The learned counsel for the appellant relied on number of decisions, viz. Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher has to be taken as the basis to compute the compensation payable to the dependent in case of a deceased bachelor.
The Honourable Supreme Court, after examining various theories for calculating quantum of pecuniary compensation, has repeatedly held that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. The said method is based upon the principle that the claimant must be paid a capital sum, which would yield sufficient interest to provide material benefits of the same standard and duration as the deceased would have provided for the dependants, if the deceased had lived and earned. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency, the starting point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, . The multiplier method involves ascertaining the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by appropriate multiplier. The multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or the claimant. The object is to compute a capital sum which if invested would yield interest in a stable economy equal to the annual dependency. While ascertaining the dependency, regard is to be also given to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should be consumed over a period of time for which the dependency is expected to last.
The age of deceased is given as 25 years in the claim petition. The first claimant, mother of the deceased was 52 years old at the time of the accident.
Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, the learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the deceased being about 25 years of age, a multiplier of 18 should be fixed as rightly done by the Tribunal. The learned counsel pointing out to the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act submitted that since the age of the deceased was only 25 years, the multiplier of 18 was liable to be made applicable.
Considering the law laid down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. The schedule provided has been thread-base discussed in various pronouncements including Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, and it has been held that the second schedule is to be used not only referring to age of victim, but also other factors relevant therefor. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, the Honourable Supreme Court has pointed out to the short-comings in the said schedule and has held that the schedule can only be used as a guide. It was also held that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely depend on the age of the deceased.
In Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh (supra), it has been observed that if a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the second schedule, then the Court has to offset such higher multiplier and balance the same with short life expectancy of the claimants.
A Three-Judge-Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, applied the multiplier of 5, taking the age of the mother into consideration. The Honourable Supreme Court in all the aforesaid decisions consistently held that in the case of a Bachelor, in computing loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, choice of multiplier should depend upon the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
In Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, it was held that the Courts have a duty to award just compensation. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make award which appears to be just and reasonable. Wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily. The compensation must be based on data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and compensation to be awarded.
The Tribunal was right in taking the monthly income at Rs. 4,000/-, in the absence of clear evidence to show that the deceased was getting Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as a carpenter. His yearly contribution to the family of the deceased after deducting l/3rd towards his personal expenses will have to be taken as Rs. 32,040/-. In the claim petition, the age of the mother is stated as 52. Having regard to the age of his mother, it is proper to adopt multiplier of 11 and thus, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 3,52,440/- (3,2040 x 11). Insofar as the conventional damages are concerned, Rs. 30,000/- for loss of love and affection (Rs. 10,000/- to each) and Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses are awarded. Hence, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 3,87,440/-. As regards interest, 9 per cent interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the quantum of compensation is reduced from Rs. 6,03,200/- to Rs. 3,87,440/- payable with interest at the rate of 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The reduced compensation is apportioned as Rs. 2,87,440/- to the mother, the first claimant and Rs. 50,000/-each to the claimants 2 and 3, brother and sister of the deceased. The Appellant is directed to deposit the amount with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, after giving credit to the amount already deposited by them, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their proportionate award amount with proportionate interest. Both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.