S.T. Kharche, J.
1. The original claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 26.4.1995 passed by the learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 121 of 1991, whereby respondents are directed to pay jointly and severally the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of the application till realisation, have filed this appeal on the contention that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.
2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:
The accident occurred on 14.6.1991 at about 10.30 a.m. on Nagpur-Amravati bypass road and Ashwini Kumar died as a result of the accident arising out of the use of two motor vehicles, i.e., Ambassador car No. CHA 451 and the truck bearing registration No. MHV 2276. The truck is owned by respondent No. 1 whereas it was being driven by respondent No. 2 on the relevant date and time and the truck has been duly insured with respondent No. 3. On the fateful day, the deceased was driving Ambassador car and was returning to his home. At that time the truck involved in the accident had come from back side and gave a dash to the car due to which Ashwini Kumar sustained grievous injuries including head injury and died on the spot instantaneously. The first information report was lodged at police station, Gadge-nagar, Amravati, on the basis of which Crime No. 184 of 1991 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the truck driver. It is contended that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver and, therefore, respondents are solely responsible for causing the accident. At the time of accident the age of Ashwini Kumar was 41 years and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000 and he used to receive perquisites like free accommodation, telephone facility, medical facility, etc. The deceased was managing the affairs of Anil Construction Company, which is a partnership firm which deals in construction work. Dharampal Kapur is one of the partners while the deceased is son-in-law of Dharampal Kapur. Ashwini Kumar was entrusted with the construction work on Amravati side and the latter used to pay Rs. 5,000 as remuneration to the deceased for the maintenance of his family. It is contended that claimant No. 1 is the widow, whose age is about 36 years and the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the age of 15 and 11 years respectively. The appellants-claimants, therefore, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 along with interest and costs.
3. The respondents combated the claim by filing their written statement and contended that the claimants are not entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 10,00,000. The parties adduced evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, had come to the conclusion that having regard to the age of the deceased as well as that of claimants, the suitable multiplier applicable would not be more than 10 years' purchase factor. The Tribunal also considered the evidence and recorded the finding that monthly income of the deceased would not be more than Rs. 5,500 and after the deduction on account of personal living expenses, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500 p.m. or Rs. 18,000 per year and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. This award passed by Tribunal is challenged in this appeal.
4. Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that the deceased Ashwini Kumar was managing the affairs of Anil Construction Company on behalf of his father-in-law Dharampal Kapur. He contended that Ashwini Kumar was provided a car with driver and perquisites were also paid to him like medical allowance, telephone facility, fees of the school in respect of the children, etc. He contended that the deceased Ashwini Kumar was drawing salary of Rs. 5,000 per month and this fact has been proved through the evidence of Raman, PW 3. He contended that Ashwini Kumar had passed B.Sc. in first class first from Bombay University and he was looking after the whole of the construction work of the company on Amravati side. He contended that Raman, PW 3, was also a partner of the said construction company and the other partner was Dharampal Kapur, who was the father-in-law of the deceased. He contended that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10 and according to him the Claims Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 15 years' purchase factor considering the age of the deceased and the dependants. In support of these submissions he relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Arati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India : [2003]1SCR1229 and Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corporation : AIR1998SC3191 .
5. Mr. Sadavarte, the learned Counsel, further contended that the claimants could not adduce any documentary evidence, but the oral evidence adduced would clearly reveal that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 5,500 per month and considering the future expenses on account of education of the children, etc., the loss of dependency would be much more than the one arrived at by Tribunal and according to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000. He contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium, mental agony and suffering and in the circumstances the appeal may kindly be allowed and reasonable compensation may kindly be awarded by making suitable modification in the impugned award.
6. None appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though duly served.
7. Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, reliance is placed only on the evidence of Neelam, PW 1, who is the widow, driver Sk. Kattu, PW 2 and Raman, PW 3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased and a partner of Anil Construction Company. He contended that Neelam admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know if her husband was paying income tax and she does not know about the accounts of Anil Construction Company. He also contended that Neelam also admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed the salary certificate of her deceased husband in the petition. He contended that the driver Sk. Kattu, PW 2, was not in the employment of deceased Ashwini Kumar and, therefore, his evidence is not of any assistance to the claimants. He further contended that Raman Kumar, PW 3, who is the brother-in-law of deceased Ashwini Kumar, also did not produce on the record any documentary evidence to show as to whether any salary was being paid to the deceased Ashwini Kumar, and if yes what was the amount of the same. He contended that evidence adduced does not show that the deceased was working as a supervisor in the said Anil Construction Company and for want of documentary evidence the Tribunal was perfectly justified in assessing the loss of dependency and awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 in all with interest. He contended that no case has been made out for any interference in the award passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeal may kindly be dismissed with costs.
8. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Ashwini Kumar died as a result of the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, i.e., truck MHV 2276 and Ambassador car No. CHA 451 and this truck is owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 on the relevant date in a rash and negligent manner and the truck has been duly insured with respondent No. 3 and the insurance policy is valid on the date of accident. The only grievance that has been put forth by the claimants is in relation to the application of the multiplier and the multiplicand.
9. In Arati Bezbaruah's case : [2003]1SCR1229 , the Apex Court considered the facts and circumstances and held that the amount of compensation should be just and fair and deviation from structured formula provided under Second Schedule for determining the compensation was not permissible ordinarily but only in exceptional cases. In that case the age of the deceased was about 40 years and the multiplier applied was 15 years' purchase factor. But considering the age, job and further prospects of the deceased, on facts the loss of dependency was enhanced from Rs. 2,000 per month to Rs. 2,500 by the Apex Court.
10. In State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur : AIR2003SC3696 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is clear from the Claims Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income of the deceased. There is no material adduced to show the type of land which the deceased possessed. Further, the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is, however, a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4,500 per month. It is not advisable to remit the matter to the Tribunal bearing in mind that a young person lost his life and the matter had been pending for years. On merits, the income is fixed at Rs. 3,000 per month and after deducting Rs. 1,000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are concerned, is fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month. Worked out on the basis of the multiplier of 18 the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,32,000. The amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus total compensation comes to Rs. 4,34,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent.
11. In the aforementioned case the age of the deceased was 25 years and monthly income was fixed at Rs. 3,000 and after deducting 1/3rd personal living expenses, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month. This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the instant case age of the deceased is stated to be 41 years and there is a dispute about the income which the deceased Ashwini Kumar was receiving from his father-in-law.
12. In Helen C. Rebello, : AIR1998SC3191 , ratio has been laid down by the Supreme Court that 'the word 'just' as its nomenclature denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable; if it exceeds, it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, inequitable, not just. Thus, this field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations and the limitations under any provision of this Act or any other provision having force of law'.
13. There can be no dispute so far as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case is concerned. What is pertinent to note is that the age of the deceased was 41 years and he died in the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle leaving behind him widow Neelam of the age of 36 years and two minor daughters, namely, Pooja and Nidhi of the ages of 15 and 11 years respectively. However, the age of the deceased mentioned in the post-mortem report is stated to be 42 years at the time of the accident. The post-mortem has been carried out on 14.6.1991 between 12.30 and 1 p.m. at the General Hospital, Amravati and the doctor has mentioned the age in the post-mortem report and also opined that the probable cause of death was shock due to head injury. Thus, in the absence of any evidence in the nature of extract of birth register from the Municipal Council regarding the date of birth of the deceased, reliance is placed on the School Leaving certificate which indicates the date of birth of the deceased Ashwini Kumar as 28.8.1950 and, therefore, it would reveal that the age of the deceased was around 41 years.
14. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 , considered the facts and circumstances and held that the multiplier method is the appropriate method for calculating the just compensation. In that case, the age of the deceased was 39 years and the multiplier adopted was 12 years' purchase factor which was held to be suitable and the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month and on this basis the compensation was awarded.
15. However, it may be useful to refer to the landmark judgment of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation. v. Trilok Chandra : (1996)4SCC362 , wherein it has been observed in para 18 as under:
We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in 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. 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; 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 Claims 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 the 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).
16. Having regard to this settled position of law in this context, it is obvious that in the present case considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, the multiplier of 10 years' purchase factor adopted by Tribunal was little bit on the lower side. On close scrutiny of the evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 12 years' purchase factor because the deceased has left two minor daughters who are to be brought up by the widow and she will have to meet the expenses of their education and marriage.
17. Now so far as the multiplicand is concerned, claimants relied on the evidence of Neelam, PW 1 and her brother Raman Kumar, PW 3. Neelam has no doubt testified to the effect that her husband Ashwini Kumar had passed B.Sc. in first class first from the Bombay University. He was the partner of Anil Construction Company whereas her brother does not say that he was a partner in the firm. However, Neelam further stated that her husband was looking after the construction work of the partnership firm and he was managing the affairs on Amravati side and he was being paid Rs. 5,000 per month along with the perquisites, i.e., free accommodation, telephone facility, medical allowances, etc. What is significant to note is that Neelam admits as follows:
I do not know if my husband was paying income tax. I do not know about the accounts of Anil Construction Company. I have not filed the salary certificate of my deceased husband in this petition.
18. The evidence of Raman Kumar, PW 3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, would show that he has deposed in terms of what has been stated by Neelam, PW 1. However, he admits in the cross-examination in the following words:
Khurana was working in the said company since last 1976. Since 1989, he was managing the affairs for Vidarbha region. Till 1990, we have submitted the income tax returns. We have submitted the expenditure incurred for Khurana in the year 1989-1990. There is no separate account in the name of Khurana, no such separate account is submitted to the income tax authority. It is correct that the department used to take measurement in respect of the work done by us and used to prepare the work running by us. It is correct that even today, we are in a position to assess the estimate costs on the work. It is correct that we are still having work in Vidarbha area. We are also doing business throughout Maharashtra.
19. On close scrutiny of the material brought in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses, it would clearly reveal that the documentary evidence has not been produced by them either to show as to what was the exact income of the deceased. It is admitted position that the deceased was not an income tax payer and no return has been submitted by him to the Income Tax Department. It is also equally significant to note that the books of the accounts of the partnership firm have not been produced. No entries have been shown to have been recorded in the books of the accounts regarding payment of Rs. 5,000 per month to deceased Ashwini Kumar. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that whatever has been stated by Neelam and Raman Kumar is nothing but an afterthought and cannot be relied on in order to show that the deceased was drawing the income of not less than Rs. 5,000 per month. Even the salary certificate has not been placed on record and in absence of entries in the books of accounts, it would be clear that whatever Neelam and Raman Kumar have stated is nothing but a guesswork only to claim more amount of compensation. It is settled law that the compensation to be awarded must be just, fair and reasonable but at the same time it cannot be a bonanza. Tribunal has considered the evidence and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500 per month or Rs. 18,000 per year and there is no reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter and, therefore, it is quite obvious that the assessment of dependency was quite just, fair and reasonable by adopting the correct multiplicand in the case.
20. The Tribunal did not award any amount on account of consortium, mental agony and suffering and funeral expenses. Therefore, we can take about Rs. 1,500 per month or Rs. 18,000 per year as the loss of dependency and if capitalised on the multiplier of 12 years' purchase factor, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,16,000 to which is added the usual award for the loss of consortium, mental agony and suffering in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000 and also to which is added Rs. 2,000 on account of funeral expenses making the total award to the tune of Rs. 2,33,000. Since the application of multiplicand at Rs. 18,000 per year would be just and reasonable and this Court directs the respondents to pay jointly and severally the compensation amount of Rs. 2,33,000 (less already paid) to the claimants.
21. So far as the award of interest is concerned, this Court may usefully refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 , wherein it was observed in para 23 that:
Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that 'in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12 per cent was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs. 50,000 paid by the insurance company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount on the date of its payment and interest shall be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date.
22. In the present case also with the change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India, the interest rates have been lowered and there are several pronouncements from the Supreme Court that the grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum would be just and fair and, therefore, this Court directs that the claimants would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition and the amount of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be deducted from the principal amount and the interest shall be calculated on the principal amount from such date. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.