B.N. Mahapatra, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the Judgment dated 01.09.1995 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 494/1994 and praying for higher compensation.
2. The facts in nut shell are that on 24.04.1989 at 4.00 P.M. while the deceased Chaitanya was coming on a Scooter, a truck bearing registration No. ORU-8938 being driven in rash and negligent manner hit the scooter near Gandhi Chhak. As a result of such accident, the deceased fell down from the scooter and the offending truck ran over him. Thereafter, he was carried to the hospital where he was declared dead. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.0 lakhs on the ground that the deceased was contributing. Rs. 1,500/- per month to his family members. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle in question appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement denying the allegation in toto.
3. According to him, the deceased while driving the scooter in rash and negligent manner met with the accident. In the alternative, it was stated by the owner that if he would be held liable to pay the compensation, the Insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company has to indemnify the liability as the vehicle in question was covered by a valid insurance policy, at the relevant time. Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 filed a written statement denying the allegations. It was contended that the claimants must prove that the driver of the truck in question was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the accident took place due to such rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that three persons including the deceased at the relevant time were coming on the Scooter and therefore there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,041/- excluding Rs. 100/- which was deducted as GPF. The monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family was Rs. 800/-. As regards the age of the deceased, it came to the conclusion that the deceased was 32 years at the time of death and would have remained in service for 26 years more had he not met with the accidental death. With this observation, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 1.16 lakhs as compensation. Since the Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased it directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 58,000/ - to the claimants along with another Rs. 5,000/- to the widow of the deceased for the loss of consortium. Against the said Judgment of the Tribunal, the claimants filed appeal for enhancement of compensation before this Court.
5. The Learned Single Judge decided the appeal considering the following two points:
(i) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased when the accident took place?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not taking into account the further rise in the pay and other emoluments of the deceased which he would have got and would have contributed more?
6. The Learned Single Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore the owner is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 1.16 lakhs as assessed by the Tribunal. The Learned Single Judge further held that on the date of accident since the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company is to indemnify the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to claimants. The Learned Single Judge further held that there was no substance in support of the plea of further rise in pay of the deceased and therefore award of the Tribunal assessing the compensation at Rs. 1.16 lakhs and Rs. 5,000 towards consortium was correct. Learned Single Judge detected Respondent No. 2 to deposit a further sum of Rs. 58,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal within three months from the date of Judgment.
7. (Sic) (Against that Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:
(a) The Learned Single Judge has erred in applying multiplier of 12 instead of multiplier of 16 as the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accidental death;
(b) The Learned Single Judge should have assessed the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/-instead of Rs. 800/-;
(c) The Learned Single Judge should have taken into consideration the statement of P.W-1 who stated that the contemporaries of the deceased were drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2,200/-on the date of recording of his statement before the Learned Tribunal;
(d) The Learned Single Judge has erred in not taking into consideration the pay revision by the State Government from time to time and a bright promotional aspect of the deceased on roster as the deceased was a member of the scheduled caste community;
(e) The Learned Single Judge was not correct in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award of the Tribunal, i.e., 18.05.1994 which should have been allowed from the date of claim, i.e., 23.03.1990;
(f) The Learned Single Judge should have allowed more than Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium;
8. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the Learned Single Judge ought to have adopted multiplier of 16 instead of 12 as the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of his accidental death. In support of his contention he relied on the following judicial pronouncements:
a) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 ,
b) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. : (1996)4SCC362 ,
c) Usha N. Dadlani and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Obroi and Ors. : 93(2001)DLT675 , and
d) Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mitradatta Mishra and Ors. 2007 (II) OLR-896.
The Learned Counsel also advanced his argument on other grounds taken in the grounds of appeal.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents supported the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge. He contended that multiplier of 12 as applied by the Learned Single Judge was correct. In this connection, Learned Counsel for the Respondents placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and different High Courts:
i) T.N.S.T.C. Ltd. v. K.I Bindra and Ors. : AIR2005SC4425
ii) U.P. Road Transport v. Krishna Bala 2006 (5) Supreme 433.
iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors. : AIR2007SC1243 , and
iv) National Insurance Co. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. 2008 (1) TAC 424 (SC).
10. Learned Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and different High Courts basically on the point relating to application of multiplier. In General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court adopted a multiplier of 12 where the deceased died at the age of 39 years. In U.P. Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the Judgment delivered in General Manager, Kerala Road transport Corporation's case (supra) with the only modification that the maximum the multiplier cannot exceed 18. In Usha N. Dadlani's case (supra) a multiplier of 15 was adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court where the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of death. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case relied on the decisions in General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) and U.P. Road Transport Corporation's case (supra). In Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co.'s (supra), our own High Court adopted a multiplier of 15 where the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of death.
11. M. In T.N.S.T.C's case (supra) relied on by the Learned Counsel for Respondents, multiplier of 13 was adopted where the deceased was 34 years at the time of death. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) a multiplier of 13 was adopted where the age of the deceased was 36 years. In New India Assurance Co.'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court adopted multiplier of 13 where the age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of death. In National Insurance Co.'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court adopted multiplier of 13 where the age of the deceased was 45 years.
12. Various Judgments relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents show that same multiplier, i.e., 13 has been adopted where the death of the deceased was between the age group of 33 and 45. The cases relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants show that the Hon'ble Apex Court adopted multiplier of 12 in the cases where the deceased was 39 years at the time of death and multiplier of 15 was adopted in a case where the deceased was 34 years at the time of death. It shows that age is not the only factor to determine the multiplier. It depends upon other attending factors besides age.
13. The Judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) was delivered by a Larger Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the earlier Judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court adopted multiplier of 12 considering the age of deceased to be 39 years. In the said case, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the maximum multiplier cannot exceed 18. According to the Second Schedule appended to the M.V. Act, 1988, the highest multiplier is also 18.
14. In the above Larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while holding that Courts can refer to the ready reckoner appended to the M.V. Act as a guide, it further held that the adoption of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent upon the age of the deceased.
15. In the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director, Zoological Survey of India and Anr. reported in 2003 (2) TAC 18, the quantum of multiplier was in dispute before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The deceased at the time of death was 40 years and the Hon'ble Apex Court applied multiplier of 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the case observed that payment of compensation on the basis of the Second Schedule appended to the M.V. Act, 1988 should not ordinarily be denied except in exceptional cases. Paragraphs-11 and 12 of the said Judgment, which are relevant for this purpose are quoted below:
11. It is now a well settled principle of law that payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for the determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation of structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the fact and circumstances of each case.
12. The victim was at the relevant time was 40 years of age. The Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15....
This Court in the case of Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co.'s case (supra) adopted multiplier of 15 where the deceased was 34 years at the time of death. The Second Schedule appended to the M.V. Act prescribes multiplier of 17 in case of death between the age group of 30 and 35.
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered, 4 Opinion that the appropriate multiplier in the present case should be 15 where the age of the deceased at the time of death was 32.
17. The other ground of challenge is that while determining contribution of the deceased towards his family, the Learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the aspect of revision of pay scales of the deceased from time to time and the prospect of his future promotions. In the instant case, the statement of the P.W. 1 who was in charge of preparation of pay bills is that the deceased was a member belonging to Scheduled Caste community and was drawing total emolument of Rs. 1161/- per month along with fixed T.A. of Rs. 100/ per month. He further stated that if the deceased would have survived by the time he would have been drawing a total salary of Rs. 2,2007- per month. P.W. 1 also stated that the deceased was also due to be promoted as per the Roaster. All the above statements of P.W. 1 were not rebutted. The deposition of P.W-1 is at page 23 of the paper book. In support of his contention, regarding future promotion of the deceased, the Learned Counsel for the claimants relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susama Thomas and Ors. (supra). Moreover, as per Clause (6) of the Schedule appended to the M.V. Act, notional income for compensation in case of non-earning is prescribed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
In that view of the matter, loss of dependency should have been assessed at Rs. 1,100/- per month for the purpose of computation of just compensation on account of loss of dependency.
18. Further grievance of the Appellants is that Learned Single Judge has erred in awarding interest from the date of award of the Learned Tribunal, i.e., from 18.5.2004 instead of 23.3.1990 which is the date when claim petition was filed before the Learned Tribunal. In this context, it will be useful to refer to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and our own High Court.
19. In the case of Mohinder Kaur and Ors. v. Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and Anr. reported in 2008 (I) TAC 871, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that interest should be allowed from the date A of filing of the claim application, the same view is also taken in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra). In that case 9 per cent interest was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court from the date of filing of the claim petition. This Court in the case of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.'s case (supra) held that the claimants were entitled to get 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Respondents having not filed any appeal or cross-objection against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, we confirm the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court and accepted by the Appellate Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the claimants are also entitled to get 9 per cent interest on the awarded amount from the date they filed the claim application before the Learned Tribunal, i.e., from 23.03.1990.
20. The next ground of the challenge of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the amount awarded by the Learned Tribunal and confirmed by Learned Single Judge towards consortium is inadequate. According to them, it should be Rs. 50,000/-. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel relied on a decision rendered in Mohinder Kaur's case (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), which was relied on by the Learned Counsel for Respondents, awarded Rs. 25,000/- for deprivation of love and affection, i.e., towards consortium. In the present case, since the deceased died at the age of 32 and at that time the age of his wife was 25 years, we direct payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards consortium.
21. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the Appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,98,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-eight thousand) (Rs. 11,000/- x 12 x 15) apart from Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand towards loss of consortium which appears to be just and proper. Thus, in total the Appellants will get compensation amounting to Rs. 2,23,000 (Rupees two lakh twenty-three thousand). We, therefore, direct the Insurance Company to pay the said awarded amount along with 9 per cent interest per annum as directed above from the date of filing of the claim application before the Learned Tribunal, i.e., 23.3.1990 till the date of deposit before the Learned Tribunal. After the awarded amount is deposited before the Learned Tribunal by the Insurance Company, Learned Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount in the same manner as has been directed in its Judgment.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, but without any order as to costs.
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.
22. I agree.