R. Banumathi, J.
1. Challenging the propriety of the Order of quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Jayaraman and Kalaivani, State Transport Corporation [STC, for short], has preferred these appeals. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the claim petitions.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:- On 21.12.1994, at about 13.00 hours, the deceased Jayaraman was driving the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. TN 37 A 9303 accompanied by his wife Kalaivani, Rangaraj, Palanisami, Mani @ Karuppusamy. While the Maruthi van was proceeding in Avanasi Road towards East keeping its left, the STC bus bearing Registration No. TN 37 N 0456, driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction dashed against the Maruti Van. Due to the impact, the Maruthi Van was dragged on the road and the said Jayaraman and four other occupants of the car died on the spot. Alleging that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, claimants - sons of the deceased have filed Petitions under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 17,37,500/- for the death of Jayaraman. For the death of Kalaivani, claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 21,69,500/-.
3. Resisting the claim, State Transport Corporation has filed counter stating that the Maruthi van was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came on the middle of the road. Seeing the van coming in such reckless speed, the driver of the bus attempted to turn the bus to the left side of the road and within fraction of seconds, van dashed against the bus, which was pulled to the right side of the road and the bus also capsized. It was alleged that the driver of the van was equally and partially responsible for the accident and therefore, STC is not liable to pay compensation. STC has also disputed age, income of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimants.
4. The fourth respondent Insurer of Maruthi Van has also filed counter stating that the Maruthi van was insured with the fourth respondent. It was alleged that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and criminal case was also registered only against the van driver and bus driver alone is responsible for the accident and therefore, the fourth respondent is not a necessary party to the claim petition. The fourth respondent has also denied its liability to pay any compensation.
5. The Tribunal had taken up joint trial in both the claim petitions. Paternal uncle of the claimants was examined as PW-1. Eye witness was examined as PW-2. To prove that both the deceased were Income Tax Assessees, an official from the Income Tax Department was examined as PW-3. Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW-1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, and pointing out filing of Charge Sheet [Ex.P-7], Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Pointing out that bus dragged Maruti Van to a distance of about 75 feet and that the bus which was proceeding from East to West did not keep its left, i.e. Southern Side, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident was due to negligent driving of the bus driver and held STC liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants. Tribunal has taken Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income of Jayaraman and fixed the annual income at Rs. 60,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses [Rs. 20,000/-], Tribunal has calculated annual loss of dependency at Rs. 40,000/-. As the deceased was aged 55 yeas, Tribunal applied multiplier 11 and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,40,000/-; and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection; and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and for death of Jayaraman, total compensation of Rs. 5,42,000/- was awarded.
6. Deceased Kalaivani was also an Income Tax Assessee. Taking her monthly income at Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 54,000/- per annum, the Tribunal deducted Rs. 18,000/- towards personal expenses and fixed Rs. 36,000/- per annum as loss of dependency. As the deceased Kalaivani was aged 34 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier 17 and calculated loss of dependency at Rs. 6,12,000/-. For loss of love and affection Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for funeral expenses an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded. For the death of Krishnaveni, total compensation of Rs. 7,14,000/- was awarded.
7. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal had taken multiplier on the higher side. It was further submitted that by adopting higher multiplier, the Tribunal has given benefit of entire life span of the deceased. Placing reliance upon : AIR2005SC2985 [Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., v. S. Rajapriaya and Ors.], the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation has submitted that where the annual income is higher, multiplier as per Second Schedule cannot be adopted. It was submitted that in respect of Kalaivani's death, Tribunal has adopted a very higher multiplier and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is to be considerably reduced.
8. Submitting that choosing multiplier would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that both the deceased were Income Tax assesses and therefore, the Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier as per Second Schedule. It was further submitted that when the minor claimants have lost their parents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for death of each of mother and father and the quantum of compensation cannot be interfered with.
9. First adverting to the negligence, Maruthi van was driven by deceased Jayaraman. Admittedly, Janaraman had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. While the Maruthi Van was proceeding near Kanuvalur from west to east, Corporation bus came in the opposite direction from East to West and hit against the Maruthi Van. Referring to Ex.A-6 Plan, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the bus came in the wrong side and hit against the van and the van was dragged to a distance. Based on the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A-6, the Tribunal held that only the bus went on the wrong side of the road and hit the van. On the basis of the evidence, Tribunal was of the view that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Considering the evidence, this Court finds that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the accident was due to negligence of bus driver and fastening of liability upon the appellant Corporation.
10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, there is no dispute that both deceased Jayaraman and Kalaivani were Income Tax assesses.
11. Claim in respect of deceased Jayaraman [C.M.A. No. 2239/2002]:
Jayaraman was doing lorry brokerage business and he was also buying and selling shares. Deceased Jayaraman also owned three acres of land and was also doing agriculture. Deceased Jayaraman was an Income Tax assessee and his Permanent Account Number is 47-031-PQ-7629. As seen from Ex.A-14 series, Income Tax recitals, Jayaraman's taxable income in the year 1991 to 1992 was Rs. 29,600/- and he paid Income Tax of Rs. 1,550/-. For the year 1992-1993, his taxable income was Rs. 30,720/- and he paid Income Tax of Rs. 1,407/-. For the assessment year 1993-94, taxable income was Rs. 20,150/- and he paid Income Tax of Rs. 2,305/-. From Ex.A-14 series and evidence of PW-3 - Officer from Income Tax Department, it is clear that Jayaraman was an Income Tax assessee from 1991 till his death.
12. The Tribunal had taken monthly income of the deceased Jayaraman as Rs. 5,000/- and annual income of Rs. 60,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, annual contribution to the family was taken as Rs. 40,000/-. The Tribunal has calculated annual loss of dependency at Rs. 40,000/-. Considering the evidence and all aspects of matter, the annual loss of dependency calculated at Rs. 40,000/- p.a. is just and reasonable.
13. Coming to the choice of multiplier, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years. As per Second Schedule, Tribunal has taken multiplier 11. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation, adopting multiplier 11 would tantamount to giving entire benefit of life span and something more to the deceased. The recent trend of the Supreme Court decisions appear to be adopting a lower multiplier when the income of the deceased is higher.
14. Choice of appropriate multiplier would depend on facts and circumstances of each case, having regard mainly to the amount of multiplicand and age of deceased and the claimants. In 2006 ACJ 854 (SC), the Apex Court was pleased to rely upon the multiplier provided in the Second Schedule to the Act for increasing the multiplier. But in later decisions, the Supreme Court trend has been to adopt a lower multiplicand.
15. In case of Jyothi Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2002)6SCC306 and in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Partricia Jean Mahajan : [2002]3SCR1176 , the Supreme Court leaned in favour of adopting multiplier as indicated in the Second Schedule, barring exceptional circumstances such as a very huge amount of multiplicand.
16. In Rajapriya's case, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. The Supreme Court has held that considering the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier would be 12. In the case of The Managing Director, TNSCTC v. Sripriya and Ors. 2007 (1) TN MAC 319 (SC), the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident. In a recent decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana : AIR2007SC1243 , the Apex Court applied the multiplier of 13 in case of death of a taxi driver aged 33 years on the date of accident.
17. No doubt, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the Second Schedule to the Act provides for multiplier of 11 for the deceased in the age group of 50 to 55. However, second schedule is applicable only to cases where the early income of the victim does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, the income of the deceased was Rs. 60,000/- p.a. Choice of multiplier depends on several factors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the age of the deceased and the multiplicand, in my considered view, applying multiplier 10 would be reasonable. Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for love and affection and the same is maintained. Compensation awarded for funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000/- is maintained as well.
18. In respect of death of Jayaraman, compensation amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- is reduced to Rs. 5,02,000/- and the compensation is worked out as under:
Compensation awarded for:- Amount in RupeesLoss of dependency 4,00,000/-[Rs. 40,000/- x 10]Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-Funeral expenses 2,000/-----------5,02,000/- ----------
19. Claim in respect of death of Kalaivani [C.M.A. No. 2848/2002]:
The deceased Kalaivani was also an Income Tax Assessee. In his evidence, PW-1 has stated that the deceased Kalaivani used to purchase shares and was also dealing in shares and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. As is seen from Ex.A-12 series and evidence of PW-3, deceased Kalaivani was an Income Tax assessee. Her PAN number is 49 - 504 - PT- 1887. For the assessment year 1991-92, her taxable income was Rs. 34,170 and the deceased paid Income Tax of Rs. 2,855/-. For the assessment year 1992-93, Taxable income was Rs. 28,270/- and she has paid Income Tax of Rs. 1,260/- and for the year 1993-94 taxable income was Rs. 37,959 and she paid Income Tax of Rs. 1,000/-. For the year 1994-95, taxable income was Rs. 34,308/- and the deceased paid a tax of Rs. 1,040/-. It is clear from Ex.A-12 and evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3, that deceased Kalaivani was an Income Tax assessee from 1990 till her death. The Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and annual income at Rs. 54,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, Tribunal had taken annual income of dependency at Rs. 36,000/-.
20. At the time of accident, deceased Kalaivani was aged 34 years. As is seen from Ex.P-10, her date of birth is 24.05.1960. As per Second Schedule, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 17, which is applicable to the age group of 30 to 35 years. No doubt Second Schedule to the Act provides for multiplier 17 for the deceased in the age group of 30 to 35 years. However, having regard to the latest decision of the Supreme Court, applying multiplier 17, would be on the higher side. Having regard to the age of the deceased and taking into account the multiplicand and age of the claimants, multiplier 13 would be justified.
21. For the death of deceased Kalaivani, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and the same is maintained. Compensation amount of Rs. 7,14,000/- awarded for the death of Kalaivani is reduced to Rs. 5,70,000/- and the same is worked out as under:
Compensation awarded for:- Amount in RupeesLoss of dependency 4,68,000/-[Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 13]Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-Funeral expenses 2,000/-----------5,70,000/- ----------
22. In the result,
C.M.A. No. 2239/2002:- the compensation amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 191/1996 is reduced to Rs. 5,02,000/- payable with interest @ 9%.
C.M.A. No. 2848/2002:- Compensation amount of Rs. 7,14,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 192/1996 is reduced to Rs. 5,70,000/- which is payable with interest @ 9%.
Compensation amount awarded shall be apportioned amongst the claimants on pro-rata basis, as awarded by the Tribunal;
Claimants would be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them along with accrued interest;
Excess compensation shall be refunded to the Appellant Corporation along with accrued interest.
The appeals are partly allowed. No costs.