AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA is allowed.
Special Leave granted.
While travelling in the bus owned by the respondent Corporation, on 1.11.1979, Sundaravaradhan fell out of the bus and died as a consequence of the injuries sustained by him. Appellant No. 1, in the appeal herein, is the widow of the deceased and the other appellants are his children. The appellants in their claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal allowed the application and awarded Rs. 75.000/-. The respondent Corporation went in appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that Sundaravaradhan fell out of the bus due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Corporation but on the basis of perverse reasoning reduced the compensation to Rs. 48.680/-. The claimants have challenged the judgment of the High Court in this appeal.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The High Court reduced the compensation on the following reasoning:
(11) Regarding quantification of damages payable, it is contended by the learned Advocate General that as the deceased was employed in Simpson & Co. and being a permanent employee therein, he cannot claim that he was making private earnings. On behalf of the petitioners, no standing order or regulation or any special order issued to the deceased permitting him to make private earnings had been produced. Therefore, except the amount mentioned in Exh. P-4, salary certificate, no other earnings claimed by petitioners based on Exhs. P-6 to P-8 and P-10 could be taken into account. In Exh. P-4, his salary is mentioned as Rs. 630.08. Out of this, two-third he would have provided to the family. So annually it would be Rs. 5.040/-. He was aged 42 at the time of accident. Relying on the statistics furnished in the Works Development Report, 1985, this Court had been consistently fixing the multiplier, by taking into account the average expectation of life in India at 55, and, therefore, the multiplier therein is fixed at 13. Hence, he would have provided Rs. 65.520/-. Out of this lump sum arrived at, for imponderables and uncertainty of life, one-third is deducted and, therefore, the compensation towards loss of earnings is fixed at Rs. 43,680/-. The casual amount of Rs. 5,000/- is added towards loss of expectation of life.
We are inclined to set aside the High Court judgment on the short ground. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the finding that the average expectancy of life in India was 55 years. It cannot be disputed that the life expectancy in India even in the year 1979 was riot less than 65 years. We, therefore, hold that the appellants were entitled to a multiplier of 20. Accepting the High Court finding that the annual expenditure by the deceased on his family was Rs. 5.040/-, we give a multiplier of 20 to reach the compensation. Since the appellants have claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation we grant the same. We set aside the High Court judgment and modify the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent Corporation. The appellants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest as awarded by the High Court. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs. We quantify the costs at Rs. 10,000/-.