Judgment:
J.N. Sarma, J.
1. This first appeal has been filed against the award dated 2.5.1995 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Kamrup, Guwahati, in M.A.C. Case No. 1 of 1992 and the accident took place on 30.11.1991 at about 1.45 p.m. at Kamakhya Gate.
2. A mini bus knocked down the motor cycle of one Kalicharan Duari, son of the claimant. The injured succumbed to his injury on the same afternoon in the hospital and thereafter this claim case was filed claiming an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The deceased was a college student. The following witnesses were examined:
(i) Dr. Dipak Das, PW 1, who deposed regarding the age of the deceased.
(ii) Deepak Sarma, Traffic Control Police No. 196, PW 2, standing at the spot.
(iii) Chari Duari, the claimant, PW 3.
(iv) Nabin Haloi, A.S.I, of Police, PW 4.
3. On consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal came to the finding by utilising multiplier method of 15 that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- and thereafter some other benefits were given and the total claim computed in favour of the claimant was Rs. 1,62,500/- and out of it 60 per cent was deducted holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and as such that amount should be deducted and having arrived at that finding only an amount of Rs. 65,000/- plus interest was granted as compensation. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. M. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. R. Choudhury, learned advocate for respondent No. 3. None appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
5. The law is that the determination of the quantum of compensation must answer what contemporary society 'would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing.' The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the 'law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales.' All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. [General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC)].
6. A recent case on this point is U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court in paras 15, 16, 17 and 18 laid down the law as follows:
(15) We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by the Tribunals and courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/ court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, (1942) AC 601, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate: X, male, aged about 35 years, dies in an accident. He leaves behind his widow and three minor children. His monthly income was Rs. 3,500/-. First, deduct the amount spent on X every month. The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming was to break up the family into units, taking two units for an adult and one unit for a minor. Thus X and his wife made 2 + 2 = 4 units and each minor one unit, i.e., 3 units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs. 3,500/7 = Rs. 500/- per month. It can thus be assumed that Rs. 1,000/- was spent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for his transport and out-of-pocket expense has to be estimated. In the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket expense at Rs. 250/-. Thus the amount spent on the deceased X works out to Rs. 1,250/- per month leaving a balance of Rs. 3,500/- - 1,250/- = Rs. 2,250/- per month. This amount can be taken as the monthly loss to X's dependants. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 2250/-x 12 = Rs. 27,000/-. This annual dependency has to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation under the head of loss to the dependants. Take the appropriate multiplier to be 15. The compensation thus comes to Rs. 27,000/- x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000/-. To this may be added a conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life. Earlier this conventional amount was pegged down to Rs. 3,000/- but now having regard to the fall in the value of the rupee, it can be raised to a figure of not more than Rs. 10,000/-. Thus the total comes to Rs. 4,05,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 4,15,000/-.
(16) In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance, (1951) AC 601, also first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as premature death of the deceased or the dependant, remarriage, accelerated payment and increase by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made the assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life-span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies' formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas' case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when the Tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance's method without making deduction for imponderables.
(17) The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the Amendment Act, 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI entitled 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks'. Section 163-A begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or the injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a Table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party fatal accident injury claims arising out of accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this Table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas' case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).
(18) We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in item No. 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs. 3,000/-. Thus the total should be Rs. 3,000/- x 15 = Rs. 45,000/- but the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000/-. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs. 9,000/-; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000/- but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000/-. To put it briefly, the Table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. 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 Davies' case (supra).
7. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Animal 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), pointed out in para 3, inter alia, as follows:
The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by Tribunals. We must remember that judicial Tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation.
8. On the basis of the recent judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the multiplier method used by the Tribunal is found to be incorrect. If the multiplier method of '18' is used the amount will come to Rs. 1,62,000/-. If the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- be added, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,89,500/- and I find this to be the just compensation for the death of son of the claimant. The insurance company shall pay the balance amount of this award passed today after determining the amount already paid within a period of three months from today. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal.
9. Regarding the enhancement of the award, I am not awarding any interest but if the amount is not deposited within a period of three months from today as prescribed above, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
10. This disposes of the M.A. (F).