Shanti Devi Verma and Another vs Babulal and Others

T.S. Doabia, J.

Heard

The parents of the deceased are seeking enhancement of the compensation and this is being done basically on the basis of the decision given by the

Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Adikanda Sethi (Dead) through Lrs. and Another Vs. Palani Swami Saran Transports and

Another, . In paras 4 and 5, following observations were made :

The Principle of determination of the compensation in the case of fatal accidents was determined by this Court in U. P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra.

This Court in para 18, after considering the tabulations, found that the maximum multiplier of purchaser was as under :

.....What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years'' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position

that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier

as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34 thereby showing lack of awareness of the

background of the multiplier system in Davks case.

Thus, we have to conclude that the annual income of the deceased is Rs. 12,000/- p.a. and he would have spent Rs. 7,500/- towards family

members and 1/3 for himself, thereby the annual income is taken at Rs. 9,000/- per year and multiplier of 18 years which is the maximum in the

case of the young person dying in an accident, has to be applied. The claimants would get Rs. 1.40 lakhs towards the compensation. Since the

claim is limited to Rs. 1 lakh, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1 lakh as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the judgment of

the High Court.

In the aforementioned case a young man of 24 years had died. His annual income was assessed as Rs. 12,000/-. The Supreme Court was of the

opinion that a multiplier of 18 could be applied and the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 1,40,000/-. As the claim was limited to Rs. 1,00,000/-

the Supreme Court allowed that much amount only. The position in this case is no different. A young man about 20 years was running his own

business. He was registered as a ''C Class Contractor with Electricity Department. He was also running his own shop where he used to repair

electric goods. Such is the statement given by Ghanshyam Das who has appeared as P.W. 1. After the death of the deceased namely Ashok

Kumar it was the mother who started to looking after the business in question. This is so stated by A.W.1 in para 2 of the Statement. In these

circumstances it can safely be concluded that deceased Ashok Kumar was earning Rs. 1,000/- every month. Notice can be taken of the fact that

unskilled worker can earn Rs. 30 to 35 in a day. The deceased was skilled person and as a matter of fact was a Government contractor. As such,

this conclusion is safely be arrived at that income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/- per month. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case referred to above the claimants are held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, in this case. The learned counsel

for the claimant has limited the claim only to that extent. The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from today. Earlier to this, the

rate of interest would be 12% per annum.