R.C. Gandhi, J.
1. The appellant in these appeals has challenged the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on common grounds. These appeals have been consolidated and are being disposed of by common order having involved common questions for adjudication.
2. As a result of the accident the claimants filed their Claim Petitions before the respective Tribunals having the jurisdiction. The Tribunal awarded the compensation on appreciation of the evidence and the law relating to the facts of the cases. While awarding compensation to the claimants/victims, the Tribunal also allowed interest @ 9% and 12% in various Claim Petitions.
3. The validity of the orders of the Tribunal have been questioned by the appellant on the ground that though the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not having valid driving licence and in presence of such findings the Tribunal was not right to make an observation and direct that the appellant may approach an appropriate forum for recovery and prove violation of the policy condition and claim compensation from the owner.
4. That the multiplier in appeal No. 12/2003 and 49/2003 has not been correctly applied. The amount awarded for shock, pain and consortium is not justified.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has conceded before the Court that they do not press for the award amount of compensation granted on account of consortium, shock and pain. Therefore, the claimants on their admission are not entitled to the said compensation. The awards are modified to that extent.
7. The plea of Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the condition of the policy has been breached by the insured and despite that the Tribunal directed the appellant to approach the proper forum to seek redressal by proving the same fact is unjustified. The record reveals that such a finding in substance has been recorded. The appellant has proved before the Tribunal that the driver was not having valid and effective licence at the time of occurrence. What is required to be done by the Tribunal in such cases has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case 'National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh' reported in, AIR 2004 SC 1531 in para 10 observing as under :
'Where an adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in according with the provisions of Sections 149(2) read with Sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal such determination of the claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Sub-section *(3) Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.'
8. After having proved the breach of condition of policy and the validity of the licence, the appellant is entitled to recover the loss from the owner in the manner as specified in the judgment (supra); therefore, these claim petitions, are required to be remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal would see that where the Appellant has proved the breach of policy conditions or the defences available to the Appellant, The Tribunal will take steps for recovery of the amount by the Appellant for the owner and where these facts have not been proved. The Tribunal will provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and decide it accordingly. These appeals are, thus, remitted to the Tribunal.
9. In CIMA No. 62/2003 there was no issue to prove the breach of the conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the owner has not committed any breach especially while the owner and drivers were exparte. The appellant has asserted his defence to prove the violation of the policy condition. The Tribunal in this Claim Petition will frame an issue to that extent and provide an opportunity to lead evidence and prove the Issue. In case the appellant could prove before the Tribunal the breach and violation of the policy condition and validity of the licence, the Tribunal should take recourse for recovery of the loss in the manner as narrated above,
10. In CIMA No. 12/2003, the age of the deceased is 50 years. The claimants have proved their claim. While determining the compensation multiplier has to be applied. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 which is not in consonance with 2nd schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act which provides that up to the age of 50 the multiplier should be 11. This has been admitted also by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of making submissions. Therefore, the multiplier to the claim shall be applied 11 instead of 13. The award is accordingly modified.
11. The appellant has also challenged the income of the deceased. I have gone through the record including the statements recorded to prove the income of the deceased. I feel there is no necessity to reproduce and discuss the statements of the witnesses as the conclusion will be the same. The claimants had led cogent evidence and proved the income of the deceased.
12. In CIMA No. 49/2003, the age of the deceased is 22 years and multiplier of 17 has been applied, keeping in view the age of the deceased bachelor and the 2nd schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act, the schedule prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the victim between the age ranges of 20 to 25 years. The age of the claimant's mother and father is 45 and 55 years respectively. In such cases the multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the life expectancy of the parents. This issue was in controversy as to whether the life expectancy of the deceased or the parents is to be taken into consideration while applying the multiplier. The Apex Court in the case titled 'National Insurance Company v. Swaranlata Das' reported in, 1993 (II) ACJ 748, has observed as under:
'The appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalization of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants, whichever multiplier is lower.'
13. In 'Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay v. Laxmaniyer' reported in, '(2003) 8 SCC 731, the age of the deceased was 18 years and of the parents was 47 years and 43 years respectively, the Supreme Court in Para 9 and 12 observed as under:
'So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that at the time of accident, as revealed from the claim petition, the claimants were 47 years and 43 years respectively. It is not the age of the deceased alone but the age of the claimants as well which are to be relevant factors, in case the parents or other dependants are claimants. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in various cases, several other factors need to be taken note of. The deceased was unmarried. The contribution to the parents who had their separate earnings being employed and educated has relevance. The possibility of reduction in contribution once a person gets married is a reality. The compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the pecuniary benefits. The multiplier adopted by the tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age of the claimants, it can never exceed 10 by the most liberal standards. Worked out on that basis the amount comes to Rs. 3.6 lakhs at the monthly expected income fixed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. Looking into the nature of the contributory negligence of the deceased after making an appropriate deduction which can reasonably be fixed at 25%, the compensation amount payable by the corporation can be fixed at Rs. 3 lakhs including the amount awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court for loss of expectation of life. Interest at the rate as awarded by the High Court is maintained from the date of application for compensation.'
If we take the age of the deceased the multiplier could be 17 and on taking into consideration the age of the parents i.e. 45 and 50 years respectively the multiplier has been prescribed as 13 in the 2nd schedule appended to the Act. In the aforesaid judgments, it is pronounced by the Supreme Court, that the appropriate method of determination of compensation is to apply the multiplier whichever is lower. So in this claim instead of multiplier of 17 it would be 13. The respondents have conceded this position of law at the bar. The claim of the claimants in this appeal is maintained to the extent of applying multiplier of 13.
14. The appeals are disposed off as observed in the course of this judgment. No order as to costs.