J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This order will also dispose of F.A.O. No. 500 of 1983 as both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala dated 8th March, 1983.
2. The accident had taken place on 9th May, 1980 at 1.30 P.M. with motor cycle No. CHD-7192 driven by Satbir Singh while going from Kalka to Pinjore. Ashok Kumar deceased was sitting on the pillion seat of the motor cycle. Ashok Kumar was employed as a forest guard and Satbir Singh was Forest Range Officer, Pinjore. The truck which struck against the motor cycle was being driven by Balwant Singh who came from the opposite direction i.e. from Pinjore side. The truck was owned by Jarnail Singh. In the said accident, Ashok Kumar the pillion rider died whereas Satbir Singh received grievous injuries. The motor cycle was also damaged. Thus, two claim petitions were filed, one by Satbir Singh for compensation on account of the injuries received by him and the other by Ramesh Rani, widow of deceased Ashok Kumar. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by Satbir Singh on the ground that the accident was caused by his negligence. Even the amount of compensation was also not determined. However, the claim petition of Ramesh Rani, widow of Ashok Kumar was allowed and she was awarded a sum of Rs. 38,400/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award.
3. F.A.O. No. 407 of 1983 has been filed by Satbir Singh challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the question of negligence whereas F.A.O. No. 500 of 1983 has been filed by Jarnail Singh, the owner of the truck and the New India Assurance Co. challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the question contributory negligence as well as the amount of compensation awarded to Ramesh Rani. In the said F.A.O. No. 500 of 1983, cross objections have been filed on behalf of Ramesh Rani for enhancement of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:
(1) Whether death of Ashok Kumar, injuries to Satbir Singh Mann and damage to motor cycle No. CHD-7192 were caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYA-7247 by its driver Balwant Singh O.P.P.
(2) Whether the claim petitions are within time ?
(3) What amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and against whom ?
(4) Relief.
4. Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that it is clear cut case of contributory negligence and the negligence of Satbir Singh driver of the motor cycle is more than that of Balwant Singh driver of the truck. It has been further found that the death of Ashok Kumar, injuries to Satbir Singh and damage to motor cycle No. CHD-7192 were due to the negligence of the drivers of both the truck No. HYA-7247 by its driver Balwant Singh and motor cycle No. CHD-7192 by its driver Satbir Singh.
5. While discussing issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal did not allow any compensation to Satbir Singh holding that 'no doubt, the right to claim a compensation is there but Satbir Singh had materially contributed towards the accident. He had not exercised ordinary care to avoid the accident and there is no equity in his favour entitled him to recover damage. In view of the clear cut negligence of Satbir Singh Mann, I do not find it fit to grant him any compensation.' At the same time, it was also held that Satbir Singh has, no doubt, suffered injuries and his motor cycle had also got damaged but he is the star culprit in causing the accident and in view of his material contribution to the accident, he is not entitled to any compensation.
6. However, in the claim petition of Ramesh Rani, a sum of Rs. 38,400/- was allowed as compensation holding the annual financial dependency of Ashok Kumar deceased to be Rs. 24,000/-. The multiplier of sixteen was applied thereto. The deceased Ashok Kumar was aged 24 years at the time of his death and he was getting a salary of Rs. 400/- per month being employed as guard in the Forest Department.
7. The main controversy between the parties to the appeals is whether the accident was caused by the negligence of Satbir Singh, driver of the motor cycle or it was caused due to the negligence of the truck driver Balwant Singh or in the alternative, if both of them contributed, as held by the learned Tribunal, then what was the extent of liability of each of them.
8. According to the learned Counsel for Satbir Singh, the negligence was that of the truck driver as he failed to take necessary steps to avoid the accident. According to the learned Counsel, the truck was heavily loaded and occupied more space on the road than it should have occupied in the ordinary course. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, it was the duty of the Tribunal to determine the extent of liability of negligence of both, the truck driver and the driver of the motor cycle. On the other band, learned Counsel for Jarnail Singh truck owner, submitted that it was due to the negligence of Satbir Singh that the accident had taken place and, therefore, neither Satbir Singh nor Ramesh Rani was entitled to any compensation from the truck owner or the Assurance Co. The liability, if any to pay compensation to Ramesh Rani was that of the owner of the motor cycle. It was also argued that in any case the liability for payment of compensation to Ramesh Rani could be only to the extent of negligence which may be held by this Court and not to the total amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal.
9. The argument was also raised on behalf of Satbir Singh that in any case, he was entitled to the relief under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it came into force during the pendency of the claim petition. According to the learned Counsel the section operated retrospectively as held in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt, Shantibai S. Dhuma and Ors. AIR 1987, Bombay, 52. This contention was controverted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Jarnail Singh truck owner on the ground that it was not retrospective as held in Yashoda Kumari and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Ors. 1984 ACJ 716, Ram Mani Gupta and Ors. v. Mohammad Ibrahim and Ors. 1985 ACJ 476 and Vazir Mohd. and Anr. v. Sambku Singh and Ors. 1986 ACJ 496. In addition thereto, an argument was also raised that since Satbir Singh did not suffer any permanent disablement as provided under Section 92-C the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act were not attracted.
10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that after holding that it was a clear cut case of contributory negligence. The Tribunal should have determined the extent of liability of both the drivers which he failed to do. It was only after determining the liability of both of them, the amount of compensation could be determined accordingly. From the evidence on the record as discussed in detail by the learned Tribunal, I find that Satbir Singh could be held liable to the extent of 2/3rd whereas the truck owner was liable to the extent of l/3rd. The argument raised on behalf of Satbir Singh that he was not liable at all, could not be accepted in view of the evidence on the record nor the argument on behalf of Jarnail Singh could be accepted that he was not liable for causing the accident to any extent.
11. After determining the extent of liability of both the drivers, next question arises as to what amount of compensation, Satbir Singh is entitled by way of compensation both on account of injuries caused to him as alleged and for the damages to the motor cycle. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal should have determined this amount but since it was not determined by him and the evidence is on the record, the same is being determined here with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties. Satbir Singh appeared as A.W. 2. He has stated that he was posted as Range Forest Officer at Pinjore, and getting a salary of about Rs. 700/-per month. He was also an agriculturist and was looking after his agricultural holding measuring 23-1/2 acres situated in Uttar Pradesh. He has also stated that his right leg had been fractured at two places. Similarly, his right arm was also fractured at two places. He also suffered injuries on his fore-head and other parts of his body. According to him, he spent a sum of Rs. 4000/- on the repair of the motor cycle. He remained admitted in the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh for three months and for about 10 to 12 days in a hospital at Amritsar and thereafter in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak for one month at one time and for 8/10 days on the second occasion. He could only walk with the help of stick. He had spent about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- for his treatment. According to him, he has suffered a loss of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that 50 per cent of the expenses incurred by him were reimbursed by the Government of Haryana. He also produced Dr Surinder Singh Lecturer, Arthopaedic, Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh as A.W. 3 to prove the injuries caused to him. He has stated that patient Satbir Singh, aged 37 years was admitted on 9th May, 1980. He has having compound fracture both bones right fore-arm, compound fracture both bones right leg and fracture shaft femur right side. He was operated in emergency and again in the private ward. Now this patient is having 1-1/2 shortening on the right lower limb and his knee is stiff in extension. His disability is 40 per cent and it is permanent. Dr. S.P. Singh Bhada, Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Kalka also appeared as A.W. 4. He has stated that Satbir Singh and Ashok Kumar, both were brought injured to this hospital. He gave them treatment and immediately referred them to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh because both the patients were in serious condition. A.W. 5 Hakim Singh, Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station, Kalka produced copy of the first information report ExhibiS AW. 5/A. There is no rebuttal to the evidence as regards to the amount of compensation claimed by Satbir Singh.
12. From the medical evidence on the record, it is quite evident that on account of the injuries, Satbir Singh is having 1-1/2 inch shortening on the right lower limb and this disability is 40 per cent and is permanent. He was entitled to compensation on the following heads:
(i) for pain, shock and suffering due to injuries;
(ii) for permanent dis-figurement and loss of future enjoyment;
(iii) medical expenditure; (iv) for the loss of future earnings;
13. According to the statement of Satbir Singh he is suffering a loss of Rs. 8,000/- per year and he has spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on his medical treatment. Since he has admitted that 50 per cent of the expenditure incurred by him on his medical treatment were re-imbursed by the Government of Haryana, he will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for his treatment because he has not produced any receipt for claiming Rs. 10,000/-on that account. It could not be disputed that in view of the disability to the extent of 40 per cent because of shortening of the right leg to hi extent of 1-1/2%, he has been made permanently disabled and for that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on that account. He will also be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering and, thus, the total amount which he is entitled to get on account of injuries caused to him including the amount spent by him will come to Rs. 30,000/-. Satbir Singh is also entitled to damages caused to his motor cycle. He claimed Rs. 4,000/- which is too excessive and he did not produce any receipt in that behalf. However, he is allowed a sum of Rs. 500/- on that account. Since his negligence in causing the accident has been held to the extent of 2/3rd, he will be entitled only to l/3rd of the said amount which comes to Rs. 10,166/- approximately. He will be entitled to this amount of Rs. 10,166/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application filed on 22nd Obtober, 1980.
14. In F.A.O. No. 500 of 1983, the learned Counsel for Jarnail Singh truck owner contended that Ramesh Rani will be entitled to realise the amount from the appellants only to the extent of l/3rd because the negligence of the truck driver has been held to that extent. This argument could not be accepted. Once it is held that the negligence was contributory and the truck driver was also liable for causing the accident, Ramesh Rani widow of deceased Ashok Kumar being a third party, was entitled to realise the whole amount of compensation from the truck owner and the New India Assurance Company, It may be that they may claim the said amount from the scooter driver to the extent of his liability in appropriate proceedings, if any.
15. Mr. M.S. Shullar, learned Counsel for Ramesh Rani, who has filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation, submitted that a multiplier of 20 should have been applied whereas, the Tribunal has applied only a multiplier of 16. He also submitted that his client should have been allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent and that too, from the date of the application. In support of his first contention, he referred to Smt Sushila and Ors. v. Delhi Union Territory through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Anr. 1987 (1) PLR 58 and Rajasthan State Transport Corporation situated at Parivahan Marg, Jaipur v. Bhajan Lai Bishnoi 1987 (1), PLR 279.
16. As a matter of fact, neither the Full Bench which for the first time floated in this Court in Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1 the theory of multiplier has given any scientific basis for arriving at a correct multiplier in a given case nor any concrete formula had been spelt out in any other decision following the Full Bench judgment The result is that it remained a rule of thumb. In appeal the court will interfere only if the compensation awarded was fixed arbitrarily or was too inadequate. Nothing could be pointed out in that respect. In the case cited above, Smt. Sushila and Ors.' case (supra) no compensation was fixed by the Tribunal and it was for the first time by this Court that compensation was determined by applying a multiplier of 20. In Rajasthan State Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 20 which was maintained by this Court. In these circumstances, no further enhancement is called for in appeal. However, the other contention of Mr. Sullar must prevail. Ramesh Rani will be entitled to the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. To that extent the cross objections are allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Both Ramesh Rani and Satbir Singh will be entitled to realise the amount of compensation awarded to them from all the respondents, who are liable to pay this amount jointly as well as severally.
17. As a result of the above discussion, F.A.O. No. 500 of 1983 fails and the same is dismissed whereas F.A.O. No. 407 of 1983 is allowed as indicated above. The cross-objections filed on behalf of Ramesh Rani are also allowed to the extent indicated earlier. However, the parties would bear their own costs in these appeals.