Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in the Claim Petition No. 25 of 1990, decided on 30.8.1993 whereby an award of Rs. 3,00,000 has been made in favour of the claimant and against the H.R.T.C.
2. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that deceased Nishchint Singh Sain was working as Junior Engineer. On 14.1.1990 he was travelling in bus No. HID 424 belonging to H.R.T.C. This bus was hit by truck No. HIB 2634 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 4. The Tribunal below held that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability 50:50. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to the claimant, who is the mother of the deceased.
3. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, has challenged the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and also challenged the quantum awarded to the claimant.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the claimant, has stated that award is on the lower side and cross-objections filed by him being C.O. No. 214 of 1994 should be allowed and the award should be enhanced.
5. With regard to the issue of negligence, in my opinion, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge this finding. As many as 18 claim petitions arising out of the accident were filed. Out of this, 12 claim petitions were compromised before the Lok Adalat. The appellant, H.R.T.C. and insurance company, respondent No. 4, had agreed to bear the compensation in the ratio of 50:50. This is obvious from the perusal of para 16 of the award. As such at this stage the H.R.T.C. cannot turn around and say that there was no negligence on its part.
6. Next issue is with regard to the amount of compensation which is just and reasonable and should be awarded in favour of the claimant. The claimant in her claim petition has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,200 per month. She has appeared as her own witness as PW 1. In her statement on oath in court, she states that the salary of her son was Rs. 3,000 per month and that he was giving Rs. 2,500 to her. She has stated that her age is 50 years and that age of her son was 30 years. In cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that her age is 70 years. She has admitted that she has another son whose age is 33/34 years. She states that her husband died 35 years back. She has stated that she does not know after how many years of marriage, he died. However, she states that she was aged 17 years at the time of her marriage. She has two sons and three daughters from the marriage out of whom two of the daughters are elder to her son who is alive.
7. PW 2 has stated that the basic pay of the deceased was Rs. 1,960 per month. In cross-examination he has admitted that unrevised pay of the deceased was Rs. 800 per month and that till his death the deceased was getting salary in the unrevised scale only. This is the entire evidence on record.
8. First question to be decided is what was the salary of the deceased. Though the petitioner appearing as witness stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month, however, this has not been proved. The official from the department, PW 2, has not given any details of the salary of the deceased except to state that his basic pay was Rs. 1,960 per month. No pay bills of the deceased have been proved on record. What was the dearness allowance on this basic salary has not been proved nor any evidence has been led with regard to the other allowances. Therefore, what is proved is only that the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,960 per month.
9. With regard to age of the deceased, there is no doubt that his age was 30 years at the time of the death. However, with regard to the age of the petitioner there is serious conflict between the version of two parties. The claimant states that her age is 50 years. She also admits that her husband died 35 years back. Her living son is 34 years old and she has two daughters who are elder to her living son. Thus the eldest daughter should be about 36-37 years old. She was married at the age of 17. She had five children from her marriage and her husband had died 35 years ago. Therefore, her age cannot be less than 55 years and for the purpose of determining the compensation it is taken to be between 55-60 years.
10. The principles with regard to the determination of compensation have been enunciated in various judgments. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 , the Supreme Court in para 8 has held as follows:
The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
11. The Supreme Court in this case held that multiplier method is the best method for determining the compensation. In para 11, it is held as follows:
The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take, for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent, then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs. 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e., the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Usually in English courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as the maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up.
12. The Supreme Court again considered the question of appropriate multiplier in U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra : (1996)4SCC362 and approved the same. In para 15, it was held as follows:
(15) We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by the Tribunals and courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/ court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused.
13. In H.S. Ahammed Hussain v. Irfan Ahammed : [2002]SUPP1SCR78 , Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 1,95,000 and Rs. 2,07,000 in cases where the mother of the claimant of young victims aged 21 and 22 years, were aged 40 and 45 years respectively and proper multipliers were held to be 16 and 15.
14. Mr. Shrawan Dogra has relied upon two decisions of Delhi High Court, one in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kumud Khosla : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1312 , wherein parents of 191/2 years old graduate earning Rs. 5,500 per month were awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 and had also relied upon a decision of Delhi High Court in A.C. Gupta v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , wherein the High Court has made an award of Rs. 4,08,000 in the case where the deceased was 24 years old engineering graduate getting a stipend of Rs. 1,300 per month and was likely to get Rs. 2,300 per month. In such case taking into consideration the future prospects, the court assessed the income at Rs. 3,000 per month and dependency at Rs. 1,750 per month and adopted the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,000.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra : (1998)8SCC633 , was considering the case of a bachelor journalist aged 31 years, who was earning Rs, 2,500 per month and the claimants were his parents. The Supreme Court held that the income of the deceased would have increased over period of time and towards the end of his career he may have earned about Rs. 7,500 per month. However, the datum figure was taken at Rs. 3,750 per month. The Apex Court held as follows:
On that basis, the 12 months' earning would have been Rs. 45,000 and adopting a multiplier of 15 looking to the young age of the deceased the total economical gain to his estate would work out at Rs. 6,75,000 at least. But taking a conservative figure of Rs. 6,00,000 it can easily be visualised that the claimants who are the parents and unmarried sister and who are dependent on him would have got at least 1/3rd amount as he would have spent the rest of 2/3rd amount of his earnings on his own family which he would have raised and on himself. This would come to a figure of Rs. 2,00,000. This can easily be treated to be the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants on account of the economical loss suffered by them as a result of the unfortunate accident to their breadwinner.
16. A Division Bench of this Court in Himachal Road Trans. Corporation v. Bimla Kanwar , has also held that future prospects can be taken into consideration. However, there has to be some proof with regard to the future prospects. In the present case there is total lack of evidence with regard to the future prospects of the deceased. However, he was in government job and his salary over period of time would have definitely increased. He would have also gained promotion. On the other hand, he was at that age when he would have got married in near future and would have spent much more on his wife and children and dependency of the mother would have been less. He could also be transferred to some other place. Mother also has one more son and cannot be said to be solely dependent on the deceased. As stated above, only basic salary of Rs. 1,960 has been proved. However, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased would have got some dearness allowance and other allowances and keeping in view future earning prospects and promotion the datum figure is taken at Rs. 3,500 per month. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court cited above and in the facts discussed above and taking the datum figure at Rs. 3,500, the dependency of mother at best can be fixed at Rs. 1,500 per month or Rs. 18,000 per year.
17. While fixing a multiplier, the courts can take guidance of the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also by now well settled and the Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that while fixing multiplier, it is not only the age of the deceased, but also the age of the claimants which has to be taken into consideration. In a case where the parents are claimants, the age of the parents is the relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the multiplier since it is the dependency of the parents which is being assessed. The multiplier has to be fixed keeping in view the age of mother. As held above, she was definitely above 55 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 10 would be just and reasonable. In fact as per the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act a multiplier of 8 is provided for this age group, but keeping in view the fact that the mother is a widow, multiplier of 10 is deemed reasonable. The compensation on this count works out to Rs. 1,80,000. In addition to this the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000 on account of loss of love and affection, conventional damages, etc. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,00,000. The appeal of H.R.T.C. is, therefore, allowed and the compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.
18. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are not maintainable in view of the judgment of Full Bench of the court passed in Lata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2005 ACJ 857 (HP) and are accordingly rejected.