ORDER
R.B. Mehrotra, J.
1. Shri Vinod Kumar Gargon 4-5-1993 was travelling by bus No. RJ-14-P-1758 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation from Agra to Bharatpur.When the bus reached military area Shahganj railway crossing, it did not stop before the speed-breaker resulting in a situation where front wheel of the bus passed over the speed breaker and the bus came down with a big jolt, as a result of which the exit gate of the bus opened and Vinod Kumar Garg, who was sitting near the window, fell down from the bus. Sri Vinod Kumar Garg received grievous head injuries and he immediately died after 25 minutes. The accident had taken place at 11. A.M. and Vinod Kumar Garg expired at 11.25 A.M.
2. The dependents of the deceased, Sri Vinod Kumar Garg, namely, Smi. Shanti Devi Garg, the nother of the deceased and Smt. Sarita Garg, the widow of the deceased as well as three minor childern of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was presided over by the Court of Special Judge (E.C.Act) Agra.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the Claims Tribunal framed issues. Following issues are relevant for decision of the present F.A.F.O.
(1) Whether the death of deceased Vinod Kumar Garg was caused due to the negligence of the driver and the conductor of the bus of the opposite party as alleged by the petitioner ?
(2) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to his own negligence ?
(3) Whether the deceased was not the valid passenger as alleged by the opposite party ?
(4) Whether the petition is barred by Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?
(5) To what relief, if any, arc the claimants are entitled
4. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided together and on a detailed appreciation of evidence the tribunal recorded a finding that the death of the deceased, Sri Vinod Kumar Garg was caused due to his falling from the bus which occasioned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the negligence of the conductor of the bus. The tribunal held that the death of the deceased Vinod Kumar Garg was caused due to negligent act of both driver and conductor of the bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
5. On issue No. 3 the tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased. Vinod Kumar was a valid passenger in the bus of the opposite party.
Issue no. 4 was also decided in favour of the claimants and it was held that the claim petition is not barred by Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that the tribunal has already recorded a finding that the deceased Vinod Kumar Garg was a valid passenger and his death was caused due to accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and negligence of the conductor.
6. On issue No. 5 on the basis of the evidence the tribunal recorded a finding that at the time of the accident the deceased was 40 years of age and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of his death. The tribunal further recorded a fading that out of the aforesaid Rs.3,000/-, the deceased was spending Rs.800/- per month for his personal expenses and Rs.2,200/- were being spent by the deceased for maintaining his family which included the studies of three minor children and thus a finding was arrived at that the annual dependency of the dependents of the deceased comes to Rs.26,400/- per year. The tribunal applied a multiplier of 20 of the aforesaid amount fixing the life expectency of the deceased at the age of 60 years. On that count the total amount was calculated to Rs.5,28,000/-. The tribunal further awarded Rs.50,000/- towards non-pecuniary losses which was bifurcated by the tribunal in three following heads; --
(1) Rs.20,000/- for loss of companionship to the widow.
(2) Rs.20,000/- for the loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased.
(3) Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the shock and mental agony suffered by the petitioner.
7. Thus a total amount of Rs.5,78,000/- was calculated towards compensation and out of the aforesaid amount tribunal deducted 20% of the amount of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. On the aforesaid basis the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,62,400/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dale petitioners filed the claimed petition till the amount is paid.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present F.A.F.O. and the claimants have filed the cross objection seeking enhancement ofthe amount of compensation.
9. We have heard Sri Sameer Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Sri Vineet Saran for the claimaints-respondents.
10. A division bench of this Court in F.A.P.O. No. 278 of 1994, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Etawah v. Shakimtala Devi decided on 28-7-1995 of which one of us (Hon. R.B.M.J) was a Member, has held that the, first appeal from order arising from an award given under Motor Vehicles Act can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents and without summoning the record in appropriate cases in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with chapter-XI Rule 9B of the Rules of the Court. The respondents have already put in appearance by filing cross objection. This Court issued notice to the respondents for deciding the matter at the admission stage with the consent of the parties and record of the Court below was not called, as we were for the opinion that the material placed on record is sufficient for disposal of the present first appeal from order.
11. We have thread-bare examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 4 and we are of the opinion that the finding does not suffer either from any error or law or fact. No material has been placed before us to demonstrate that finding recorded by the Tribunal is either perverse or is against evidence on record.
12. The only question which needs to be decided in the present matter is as to whether the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles of law laid down for determination of the compensation of the Motor Accident Claims and as to whether there was sufficient material on record to arrive at a finding that the deceased was having an income of Rs.3,000/- per month on the date he met with fatal accident and died as a consequence of the accident.
13. The claimants filed the income certificate from Income Tax Department of the year 1991 92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The annual income of the deceased in the year 1991-92 was Rs.33,210, in the year 1992-93 was Rs.39,784 and in the year 199.1-94 the income was shown to be Rs.46,930. The tribunal rightly recorded the finding that there may be sonic exaggeration in the incomecertificate for the year 1993-94 as it was obtained after the death of the deceased but there seems to be no justification to dis-believe the income certificate for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 and on the basis of the aforesaid income tax return the tribunal recorded a finding that the average annual income of the deceased was Rs.36,000/- per annum which came to Rs.3,000/- per month.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants mainly is that in view of the principles laid down in (1) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Tribandrumv. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others (AIR 1994 SC 1631 : 1994 AIR SCW 1356 (SC). the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiple 29, to the amount which the deceased was supposed to be spending on his dependents. The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that the income certificate obtained by the claimants from the Income-tax Department to prove the actual income of the deceased in the relevant years in regard to which it is relevant to notice that the alleged income was within the examination limit or something more thereon. The deceased might be paying nominal income tax in the relevant years. Mere filing of return cannot be a proof of the deceased income.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that non-pecuniary losses have been wrongly assessed to Rs.50,000 whereas in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1994 SC 1631 (supra) the Court assessed only a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards non-pecuniary losses. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that since the amount of compensation was on higher side, there was no justification for awarding interest. In support of the aforesaid contention Sri Sharma has placed reliance on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lashkar v. Ramsingh, AIR 1995 MP 171.
16. The counter conlcntion of the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Vineet Saran is that normally a person can be understood to have shown lesser income in tax return but there is no justification for assuming that the income shown by the deceased was on higher side than the actual income earned by the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of the concrete findings arrived by theTribunal that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per month and was spending Rs.2200/- on his dependents, there was no justification for the tribunal to have deducted 20% from the total amount arrived at by the Tribunal.
17. In New India Assurance Company, Etawah F.A.F.O. No.278 of 1994 D/- 28-7-1995 (All) (supra) this Court has explained me decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and his AIR 1994 SC 2405 : 1994 AIR SCW 2448 followed two later decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Urmila Pandey v. Khalil Ahmed and S.Chandrav. Pallaw Transport Corporation, 1994(2) SCC 189 and has upheld the principles of applying multiplier of 30, to the annual amount spent 'by the deceased on his dependents to figure arrived at by deducting the Range of the deceased from his expected life.
18. On the principles laid down therein, we affirm the findings of Tribunal and uphold applying multiplier of 20 in the present case and we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the principle of applying multiplier of 20 on the amount which the deceased was spending on his dependents is just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
19. So far as the finding of the Tribunal for arriving at a decision that the deceased on the relevant date was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, we are of the view that on the basis of the cogent evidence and proper appreciation of entire circumstance, the tribunal recorded the said findings.
20. For the purpose of proving the annual income of the deceased, the claimants filed income-tax return for the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. In the relevant years the limit of exemption from income tax was respectively Rs.22,000/- Rs. 28,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. In the income tax return the deceased furnished return of Rs.33,210/- for the assessment year 1991-92 and return of income tax of Rs.39,780 in the assessment year 1992-93 and return for an income of Rs.46,930/- in the assessment year 1993-94. The Tribunal has rightly held that there may be some exaggeration in the income certificate for the year 1993-94 as it was obtained after the death of the deceased but there seems to be no justification to dis-believe the income of the deceased forthe assessment year 1991 -92 and 1992-93 and on the basis of the aforessaid analysis arrived at a finding that the deceased had an average annual income of Rs.36,000/-. The said finding is based on absolutely scientific approach and we are of the opinion that there is no justification for interfering with the said finding.
21. The only question which now remains to be examined is as to whether the tribunal was justified in deducting 20% from the total amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal. The amount has been deducted by the Tribunal for uncertainties of life.
22. In Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, JT 1992 (2) SC 409 : AIR 1992 SC 1261 : 1992 AIR SCW 1213, the Apex Court held as under :
' We are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump-sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This Court in Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. v. J. K. Modi (1981) ACJ 507 held that the delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, taken a sting out of the laws of compensation and added to that the moistrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In Manju Shri Raha v. B.L.Gupta (1977) ACJ 134 this Court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump-sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the Courts below were not justified in making lump-sum deduction in this case.'
In Urmila Pandey AIR 1994 SC 2405 : 1994 AIR SCW 2448 (supra) the Supreme Court held:
' The Tribunal has grossly erred in computing the compensation amount. The Tribunal was not justified in assuming the life expectancy to be 58. It could not be less than 65 even at that point of time. The Tribunal also fell into error in making 33% deduction for the lump-sum payment. As a matter of fact, no payment till date has been received by the unfortunate family.
23. In the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that in appropriate cases 33% should not be deducted for lump-sum payment.
24. However, in the present case me Tribunal has deducted only 20% for uncertainties of life and lump-sum payment. The accident took place on 4-5-1993. This Court while granting the interim order, had directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount with the Court below which in turn was to be deposited in a long term deposit of a Bank. The respondents will be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount with interest. Taking over-all circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the deduction of 20% of the amount for uncertainties of life is not so irrational in the circumstances of the present case which requires interference by this Court in the present appeal. Accordingly we reject the cross objection also.
25. However, for safeguarding the interest of the minors certain guidelines are to be provided for utilisation of the compensation amount. Out of the total amount of compensation awarded for Rs.4.62.000/- the Respondent No. 2, who is the widow of the deceased, will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 1,00,00 for the purpose of bringing up three minor childern and certain immediate necessities of life. The Respondent No. 6, the mother will be entitled to withdraw Rs.25,000/- out of the compensation amount awarded for her use and for meeting the loss which her deceased son was spending on her. Rest of the compensation amount will be deposited in favour of three minor childern, l/3rd each in favour of three minors, the Respondents No. 3,4, and 5. This amount shall be withdrawn by the Court from the long term deposit sheme as directed by this Court on 5-7-94 and will be re-deposited with Unit Trust of India to earn maximum interest. The deposit shall be initially made for a period of three years and shall be renewable thereafter, after every three years. The Respondent No. 2 will be entitled to withdraw the interest on the aforesaid amount for the benefit of these minors on norial (sic) basis. The fixed deposit receipt of security, as the case may be, shall neither be pledged nor shall be offered as security for any loan nor shall any loan be permitted to be drawn against the same except with the previous permission of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra under whose supervision the 'amount will remain in deposit. However, the Respondents No. 3,4 and 5 on becoming majorcan withdraw the aforesaid amount from the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for any necessity which may arise after their becoming major.
26. With the aforesaid observations, both the F.A.F.Os. and cross objections are dismissed.
27. Order accordingly.