Judgment:
P.D. Kode, J.
1. By the present appeal the appellants/original claimants, who are respectively wife and daughters of one deceased Ranjit Singh have challenged the judgment and order dated 3.12.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Wardha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 136/1994 partly upholding the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,65,000/- (inclusive of compensation for no fault liability) with interest at rate of 12% per annum since the date of the application out of original claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- made and has prayed for enhancing compensation by atleast Rs. 5,40,000/-.
2. The facts bereft of unnecessary details, giving rise to passing of said judgment and order are as under:
It is the case of the claimants that on 16.4.1994 Ranjit Singh, 35 years of age and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from business was proceeding to Nagpur from his 'Motel Highway' at Palora by sitting on left side of driver in the cabin in a truck bearing registration No. MWY-7291 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 insured with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 driving the said truck in rash and negligent manner while overtaking a stationary matador on the road, had not noticed a truck bearing registration No. AS-01-A-5710 owned and driven by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent No. 5 then coming in opposite direction in high speed and had a head-on-collision with said truck. At the same time truck in which Ranjit Singh was proceeding received a dash from rear side from another Tipper bearing registration No. MH-27-A-3438 owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with respondent No. 8 and driven by respondent No. 7 and following the truck without keeping safe distance. As a result of accident occurred, Ranjit Singh was thrown out on the street and was crushed beneath truck No. AS-01-A-5710 and had succumbed to death due to the injuries sustained before reaching Medical College Hospital, Nagpur for treatment.
3. In support of the claim, appellant No. 1 has given the evidence at Exh.33 and has also produced documentary evidence i.e. 7/12 extract of the agricultural land, xerox copies of the registration of truck standing in name of her deceased husband, original assessment order regarding income of her husband and other documentary evidence pertaining to accident occurred. She claimed that her husband was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The evidence of her brother-in-law with whom deceased was 50% partner in the Motel Business and of the policeman regarding lodging of the report about accident occurred was also adduced by claimants. The evidence of opponent No. 2 driver Bholasingh of truck No. MWY-7291 and of opponent No. 7 driver of Tipper was adduced in the claim respectively by opponent Nos. 1 and 2 and opponent Nos. 7 and 8 before the Tribunal.
4. After assessing the evidence adduced tribunal had arrived at conclusion of accident in question having occurred due to 40% negligence of each of the driver of the truck i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and 20% due to negligence of the driver of Tipper i.e. Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 3 having failed to prove breach of conditions of policy, appellants being entitled to receive compensation with interest from the respondents. While coming to such a conclusion, the tribunal had concluded that the deceased must be spending Rs. 2500/- per month for his family and hence assessed yearly dependency of the claimants being of Rs. 30,000/- and applying the multiplier of 15 has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled of a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- on said count. By adding a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of love, affection and company, in said sum the Tribunal had concluded of appellants being entitled to a net compensation of Rs. 4,65,000/-. Tribunal, while passing the award impugned, had deducted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from said amount as compensation for no fault liability already received by appellants.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has mainly urged that tribunal erred:
(a) In appreciating the evidence of appellant No. 1 and her brother-in-law Surjitsingh regarding the income earned by the deceased and failed to take into account all sources of income of deceased while assessing loss caused to the appellants;
(b) In appreciating income tax returns submitted and in coming to conclusion of deceased spending only Rs. 2500/- per month on his family.
(c) In applying multiplier of 15 instead of correct multiplier of 17 required to be applied in view of age of the deceased being proved to be 35 years.
6. The learned Counsel has urged that the said errors committed by the tribunal had resulted in assessing compensation on lower side to the tune of Rs. 4,65,000/- and hence same deserves to be enhanced by awarding additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.40 Lacs with an interest at the rate of 18% thereof. The learned Counsel also placed reliance upon certain decisions to which reference is made at an appropriate stage.
7. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 8 vehemently opposed enhancing of the compensation and prayed for dismissal of appeal by urging that:
(a) The appellants had failed to give proper account for compensation claimed and has further failed to adduce cogent evidence for supporting such a claim staked.
(b) The evidence of appellant No. 1 is contradictory and unacceptable in light of matters revealed from income tax returns placed on record on behalf of the appellants.
(c) The income tax returns submitted after the death of deceased cannot be relied in view of same not denoting actual income of deceased.
(d) The Appellant No. 1 during the evidence having diluted the original claim of deceased spending Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, her claim regarding relevant aspect is unworthy of any credence.
(e) Her inability to tell income earned by her husband from the agricultural land, herself getting Rs. 6,000/- per month by way of an interest on the amount invested by her husband in motel business and her evidence not disclosing the appellants having sustained any loss in the agricultural income and the business of the truck, considered on the backdrop of admission given by her and matters from income tax returns clearly reveals that finding arrived at by the tribunal of deceased spending an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month cannot be faulted.
(f) The learned Counsel by laying their fingers upon certain judgments of the Apex Court to which the reference is made lateron, urged that multiplier applied by the tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect.
8. After carefully considering record and proceedings of tribunal in the light of the submissions canvassed by the rival parties the only point 'whether error, if any, was committed by tribunal in determining/awarding just and proper compensation to which the appellants were entitled' arises for our consideration.
9. The glance at the claim petition preferred, undoubtedly supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that same fails to give basis upon which appellants had staked a claim for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The same also supports further submission of learned counsel for the respondents that though petition reveals claim being staked of deceased earning an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month there is hardly any split up mentioning precise income earned by the deceased from each of his three sources of income i.e. (i) motel business, (ii) transport business and (iii) agricultural land being given in petition.
10. On the said backdrop of lacuna of pleadings, the evidence of appellant No. 1 which is of foremost importance for determining income of the deceased for assessing the loss caused to the claimants due to his death, does not disclose any better position. Her evidence in terms reveals of original claim of deceased earning Rs. 15,000/- per month being diluted to deceased earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- thousand per month.
11. In the same context considering the decision relied by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the case of V. Subbulakshmi and Ors. v. S. Lakshmi and Anr. : AIR2008SC1256 and particularly observations made therein paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 which clearly reveals that the income tax returns submitted after the death of an assessee are required to be excluded from consideration for the purpose of assessing his income and income tax returns submitted for the year 1993-94 of deceased Ranjit singh disclosing the same being submitted after death of deceased i.e. on 8.8.1994, the income of Rs. 1,06,292/- mentioned therein cannot be taken into consideration for assessing his income.
12. On the aforesaid backdrop now further considering claim staked by appellant No. 1 that deceased was earning monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- from the business i.e. thus earning an annual income of Rs. 1,80,000/- also cannot be readily accepted after considering the same from the matters reflected from the returns submitted for the year 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 which discloses income of the deceased for respective years being Rs. 46,136/- and Rs. 63,570/-. Thus claim of appellant No. 1 apart from being not supported by documentary evidence and on the contrary same being contradicted by the documentary evidence in the shape of income tax returns does not deserve any credence.
13. Apart from aforesaid, it is also well settled position that quantum of compensation is always to be assessed not on the basis of income of the deceased but on the basis of actual loss in income caused to dependents due to the death. The evidence of appellant No. 1 does not establish loss as alleged being caused to appellants with regard to the agricultural income since she has not precisely stated about income earned by the deceased from agricultural lands and at second place herself having claimed of now only receiving Rs. 6,000/- per year from an agricultural lands which is not supported/established by adducing any documentary evidence. With regard to motel business appellant No. 1 herself having admitted of receiving Rs. 6,000/- monthly by way of interest upon the amount invested by her husband in the motel business and the same being to some extent found corroborated by the admission given by her brother-in-law of himself paying Rs. 5,000/- monthly by way of interest makes it difficult to accept of any cogent evidence being adduced by the appellant for establishing loss sustained by the them on the count of death of deceased in respect of his earning from the said two sources.
14. Even with regard to the case regarding the income of deceased from transport business is also not different. Even in said regard during the cross examination of brother-in-law of the appellant having claimed of the deceased getting Rs. 3,000/- per month from transport business and thus Rs. 36,000/- as an annual income from the said business and claim staked of now appellant No. 1 is receiving only Rs. 1,000/- per month from the said business and thus Rs. 12,000/- annually from the same also cannot be considered to be an evidence cogent enough to come to the conclusion that the appellants have established the loss of Rs. 24,000/- being sustained by the appellants from the said source on account of death of deceased. The same is apparent as no documentary evidence regarding the income earned by the deceased from the said business and even for an agricultural land or motel business has been placed on record. It is pertinent to note that appellant No. 1 was not able to tell the income of the deceased from the agricultural land and so also from the motel business. The appellant No. 1 has not even claimed of earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from transport business as tried to be canvassed by her brother-in-law.
15. Thus considering all disparities revealed from the evidence led on behalf of the appellants regarding the basis for staking the claim for compensation, there appears substance in contention of learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 8 of appellants having not adduced cogent evidence regarding the income of the deceased and/or consequently about the loss suffered by them due to his death.
16. Apart from the aforesaid state of affairs regarding evidence placed before the Tribunal by claimants still considering purpose for which Motor Vehicles Act legislation is made and mainly provision for awarding compensation incorporated therein and taking into consideration the admission given by the appellant that she is getting an interest at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month from motel business and getting Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- yearly income from agricultural business and evidence of her brother-in-law of herself getting Rs. 1,000/- per month from transport business and her claim that deceased was spending Rs. 10,000/- per month on the family considered in the light of the income of the deceased claimed by her as well as reflected from the income tax returns, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants of the tribunal having committed any error while calculating the compensation on the basis of monthly loss of dependency being Rs. 2,500/- per month. Though it is true that in true sense the tribunal ought to have observed such loss being caused to the appellants instead of erroneously observing the same being amount spend by the deceased upon the appellants. However occurring of such a loss can be gathered from the evidence adduced and the same can be used for assessing the compensation to be awarded to the appellants. Hence, we find no error having been committed by the tribunal by taking the same as a basis for assessing the compensation.
17. Now with regard to the multiplier applied, the settled legal position regarding the application of multiplier being that the matters from the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be predominately used for the purpose of assessing the compensation in the claim preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same are not to be blindly used for the claims preferred under other provisions and the matters from the relevant table are to be used only by way of an guidelines as observed by various decisions given by the Apex Court, out of which few were pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 8 namely (i) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors. : AIR2006SC2688 (ii) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. : (1996)4SCC362 and (iii) Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. : AIR2006SC1255 , we do not find any merit in the submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants of the tribunal having committed any serious error in applying the multiplier while assessing the compensation to which the appellants are entitled.
18. In the aforesaid context, we feel it necessary to observe that the whole exercise of adopting of an multiplier method involving assessing multiplicant and multiplier being for assessing just compensation to which the appellants are entitled and taking into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the claimants and assessing multiplicant always involving element of speculation some marginal variation occurred in determining a multiplier to be applied cannot be regarded as an error warranting interference with the award passed by the Tribunal.
19. We are of such considered view as numerous judgments given by the Apex Court in terms reveal that in India the highest multiplier of 18 is to be applied for an age group of 21 to 25 while the lowest of 5 has been awarded for the deceased of age group 65 to 70. Having regard to the same and also having taking into consideration other relevant circumstances i.e. the character of an evidence placed before the Court regarding the income of deceased, the ages of the appellants and particularly that of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of an death probable period or their dependence upon the deceased cannot be expected to be more than themselves attaining age of their marriage etc, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the multiplier of 15.
20. In the same context considering true import of decisions in the cases of Mohan Singh v. Kashi Bai and Ors. : AIR2009SC2006 , Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Anr. : [2003]1SCR1229 , Jyoti Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. : (2002)6SCC306 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. : (1996)4SCC362 and Kaderkunju and Anr. v. Maheshwaran Pada Nail and Ors. : AIR2000SC3473 relied by learned Advocate for appellants and same clearly indicating that the Apex Court has decided multiplier not only on basis of the multiplier provided under the second schedule and the same being determined after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances connected with the case and the nature of the claim preferred, we are unable to persuade ourselves that the said decisions pointed can be said to be of any assistance for the appellants for advancing their case of wrong multiplier being applied while assessing the compensation for them.
21. Lastly with regard to the grievance made by learned counsel for the appellants of Tribunal having not taken into consideration aspect of deceased being businessman and as such there was every likelihood of increase of his income from business in future and said aspect being overlooked by Tribunal, we are unable to give any credence to the grievance made having due regard to true import of the decision in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. : AIR2006SC1255 pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents which amongst other reveals observation to the effect 'mere assertion of claimants that he would have earned certain sums in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate unless all relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before Tribunal, We are of such a view as the evidence led by the claimants discussed by us clearly reveals that the claimants have not taken any pains of preciously establishing income earned by deceased from his each of source of income. Needless to add that the evidence adduced is insufficient to give a clue even by speculation regarding increase in income in future. Needless to add that mere assertion of submission that motel business was prosperous would not be sufficient without any evidence having been led showing progressive increase in income from the said business during the previous years. We find unnecessary to discuss the relevant aspect qua other business in view of inability of the claimants to establish income from the same and additionally having failed to lead any evidence indicating that income from the same was also likely to be increased after passage of time. Thus, we find no merit in the said grievance made by learned Counsel for the appellants.
22. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the just and proper compensation to which the appellants were entitled. Hence we find no merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.