Judgment:
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This order will dispose of FAO No. 929 of 1985 and FAO No. 930 of 1985 filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala dated 11.6.1985.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' on a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur and her minor son Karamdeep Singh Bal, had awarded a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition for the death of the Devinder Singh. Besides this, the Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Dharam Singh claimant for the damage caused to his scooter.
3. Both the appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Shashi Kant Jallan on whom the liability to pay the aforesaid compensation has been fastened.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the claimants, as set up in the claim petition, is that Devinder Singh (since deceased) aged 38 years, R/O Khanna was employed in Merchant Navy Greece. In March 1984, he was on leave and was residing at Patiala with his family. On the fateful evening of 2.4.1984, the deceased was driving Scooter No. PUL-3293 at a normal speed on the correct side of the road. Karnail Singh respondent was driving Jeep No. PBV-4011 in a rash and negligence manner. The said Karnail Singh took his vehicle on wrong side of the road and struck it against the scooter of the deceased. As a result of the collision, deceased fell down and received injuries on his head and other parts of the body.
5. The deceased in unconscious condition was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala by S/Shri Ram Nath and Surinder Singh, eye witnesses, where he was admitted. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 12.4.1984. The accident was reported to the Police by one Jagan Nath, an eye witness and on the basis of his statement, the FIR was recorded.
6. It has been alleged in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 25,000/- and due to abrupt termination of his life, the claimants have suffered pecuniary loss of the tune of Rs. 90 lacs.
7. On notice of the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured. As such the Insurance Company was also arrayed as respondent. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle admitted the accident whereas the Insurance Company denied the occurrence. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle gave their own version in theif reply. Their version is that respondent Karnail Singh was driving the jeep at a slow speed on the correct side of the road and the deceased riding scooter No. PUL-3293 suddenly appeared from a side road and struck against the jeep which was going along the main road. The respondents shifted the entire blame on the deceased.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following issues :-
i) Whether the auto-mobile accident resulting in the death of Devinder Singh Bal was brought about through rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. PBV-4011 by respondent Karnail Singh. OPA.
ii) To what amount of compensation of damage are the claimants entitled and if so from whom OPA.
iii) Relief.
Both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. A sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants of the deceased and as Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to Dharam Singh for the damage caused to his scooter as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.
9. The challenge to the award is that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Devinder Singh as well as the driver of the offending vehicle. The other plea raised by the Counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is higher.
10. The counsel for the respondents contends that the involvement of the offending vehicle has been proved on the record and there was no error on the part of the Tribunal in applying a multiplier of 15. As such no interference in the award of the Tribunal is called for.
11. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and appraising the evidence on record, I am convinced with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No. PBV-4011. The said finding is based on the version of eye witnesses namely Ram Nath (AW-7) and Surinder Singh (AW-8). The presence of these two eye-witnesses at the time of the accident cannot be disputed as Ram Nath (AW-7) was running a tea stall, whereas Surinder Singh (AW-8) had a workshop along the road side at which the accident had occurred. These two witnesses had given consistent account of the manner in which the accident had taken place. They stood the test of lengthy cross examination and the learned Counsel for the appellant-company could not extract any material to discard their testimony. The presence of the said witnesses at the time of the said accident was quite natural. They being independent witnesses and being not related to the deceased in any manner, I see no reason to disbelieve their testimony. As such the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that Devinder Singh had died due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle does not warrant any interference.
12. The next plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal had wrongly calculated the monthly income of the deceased and on the basis thereof had wrongly assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased. As such, the Tribunal had awarded the higher compensation. I find no substance in the plea of the appellant for the reasons that annual dependency of Rs.48,000/- was rightly assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the emoluments of the deceased which were duly proved by the claimants on the record. The deceased was 38 years at the time of the accident and the life expectancy has been judicially recognised at 70 years in this part of the country. This would mean if the deceased had not died in the accident, he would have lived for another 30 years or so. The proposition of law is well settled that no hard and fast rule can be applied as to what would be the suitable multiplier in a particular case. In the instant case, it was proved on record that the deceased was 38 years at the time of his death. Keeping in view his age, the Tribunal had adopted a just and reasonable multiplier of 15 while awarding compensation to the claimants. The Full Bench of this Court in Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Anr., 1979 PLR 1 had observed that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned. For the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the actual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier.
13. In the case in hand I see no illegality or infirmity on the part of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier of 15. Thus the compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded on the basis of the claimants' dependency and the income of the deceased cannot fee termed as on higher side by any stretch of imagination. I am also convinced that the compensation awarded in FAO No. 930 of 1985 to Dharam Singh amounting to Rs. 2,000/- for the damage caused to his scooter is also just and reasonable and cannot be said to be on higher side.
14. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.