AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—It is proposed to dispose of F.A.O. No. 33 of 1980 and F.A.O. No. 104 of 1983 by a common judgment since both the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of an unfortunate accident which took place on June 22, 1975 at about 6.30 p.m. in between Daunghal and Kararaghal resulting in death of some passengers.
The only controversy which requires determination in these appeals pertains to the just compensation to be awarded under the provisions of Section 110-A and Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the dependents of the deceased. The principles which would govern the determination of the amount have been very lucidly dealt with and laid down in H.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pt. Jai Ram and etc. etc., by a Division Bench of this Court. The ratio of that case was followed in another Division Bench case, namely, State of Punjab v. H. L. Kochhar ILR (1980) H P 271 . Although Jai Ram''s case (supra) has not been adverted to in a later decision of this Court reported in Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Raj Mago and Others, the same principles have been followed once again for determining the just compensation. In short, the amount payable is worked out by resorting to the "Multiplier theory". While doing so net pecuniary loss caused to the dependents for a period of one year by the premature death is worked out and the figure so assessed is termed "the amount of annual dependency". This is multiplied by the number of "years'' purchase" which means the number of years the benefit was expected to last. Various imponderable factors are also taken into consideration while fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand Thus, the law applicable for determining the just compensation having been well-settled by now, I proceed to determine the amount of just compensation payable in both cases.
F.A.O. No. 33 of 1980.
Deceased Hem Raj Kapoor was working as a Superintendent in the office of H.R.T.C., Simla on the date of accident. He was drawing monthly remuneration of Rs. 1020/-. He was 44 years old at the time of his untimely death and left behind his widow, two sons, two daughters and his mother, all of whom have jointly preferred the claim petition out of which the present appeal has arisen. Shri Mohan Lal (P.W. 5) and Shri Amrit Lal Kapoor (P.W. 9) have stepped into the witness box to depose that the deceased was spending a sum of Rs. 150/- per mensem towards his personal expenditure and that he was contributing the balance remuneration for the maintenance of his dependents. Notwithstanding the fact that these witnesses have not been cross-examined on the above point, I am quite hesitant to accept this testimony as reliable for the reason that these witnesses were not in a position to exactly know as to how much amount the deceased was spending on himself. In any case, mere bald statement of this nature uncorroborated by other trustworthy evidence cannot be acted upon. The learned Tribunal, therefore, correctly resorted to the unit system as enunciated in H.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pt. Jai Ram and etc. etc., but it is not clear as to how he arrived at the figure of Rs. 500/- as the monthly amount being contributed by the deceased towards the maintenance of his dependents. In whatever manner this amount may be calculated, it comes to a little more than Rs. 800/-. It has, therefore, been urged by Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants that the sum of Rs. 500/- be enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month with the result that annual dependency would work out as Rs. 9,600/-. This contention has to be upheld for it appears that the learned Tribunal has fallen into some arithmetical error while arriving at the figure of Rs. 500/-. As regards the multiplier which is equivalent to the number of "years'' purchase", the learned Tribunal has assesed it as 14 years. Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondents, has forcefully argued that the multiplier ought to be reduced keeping in view the totality of the circumstances. It has been pointed out by him that one son of the deceased was employed by H.R.T.C. as a clerk and further that two daughters of the deceased were sufficiently advanced in age which means that they had to be married within a few years of the date of occurrence and would have thereafter ceased to be dependent on the deceased. I think these factors must have weighed in the mind of the learned Tribunal before arriving at the multiplier of 14. The Supreme Court has in some cases fixed this multiplier at 20 on the higher side. In fact, the trend in some other High Courts has to increase it to as much as 28 in appropriate cases. The deceased, as stated above, was 44 years old and had to remain in active service for another 14 years. In all probability, he would have earned some promotions and, in any case, annual increments. Cumulatively, therefore, I do not want to disturb the multiplier of 14 on the facts of this case. In this way, the amount payable to the appellants comes to Rs. 1,34,440/-. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as the conventional damages due to loss of expectancy in life, this amount comes to Rs. 1,37,400?/- against a sum of Rs. 84,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. It may be stated here that Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants, did not press for the award of interest on the amount of enhanced compensation. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted and the amount of award increased from Rs. 84,000/- to Rs. 1,37,400/-. There will be no interference so far as the amount of interest allowed by the learned Tribunal on the sum of Rs. 84,000/- is concerned.
F.A.O. No. KM of 1983:
In this case, deceased Sant Prakash Aggarwal was working as Chief Inspector in H.R.T.C. and drawing a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 7307- (round figure). The unit method has been applied in this case as welt and it has been correctly calculated that the annual value of the dependency was Rs. 5,880/-. The learned Tribunal has further allowed multiplier of 20 years in order to arrive at the sum of Rs. 1,17,600/- and thereafter added another sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards the mental agony and pain suffered by the appellant, thus, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,22,600/- in all. Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the amount of annual dependency is inadequate inasmuch as future chances of promotion of the deceased have not been taken into consideration on the facts of this case. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has specifically referred to such chances. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the multiplier of 20 years allowed in this case also looks after this aspect of the matter. The amount of compensation awarded in this case calls for no interference except to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment as postulated in Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act and held payable in L.P.A. No. 16 of 1977 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors.) decided on October 30, 1985 instead of 6% awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted to the extent indicated above.