Oral Judgment:
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act by original respondent no.1 assailing judgment and award dated 28.03.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P.No.44/1988 whereby the applicant nos. 1 to 7respondents herein were granted compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- on account of death of Satish Ramteke in motor vehicular accident occurred on 17.02.1988 in Lalpeth Colliery, Chandrapur.
2. The learned tribunal, after considering the income and age of the deceased, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.14,400/- per annum and by adopting multiplier of 20 arrived at figure of Rs.2,88,000/- and directed the respondents to pay the said amount inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.15,000/-.
3. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. According to him, by choosing wrong multiplier of 20, irrespective of age of the claimants, the learned tribunal has fallen in error in granting total compensation of Rs.2,88,000/.
4. Mr. K. R. Lambat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7, supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. According to him, this is a case of death of a young person aged about 26 years, who had left behind him parents, minor brothers and sisters. In that view of the matter, no interference with the judgment and award impugned is warranted, he urged.
5. The controversy involved in this appeal is about ascertaining suitable multiplicand and choosing of proper multiplier.
6. Evidence was led to the effect that the deceased was working as Electrical Foreman in the office of Project Officer, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast, Chandrapur on monthly salary of Rs.1673.82/-. He was holding Diploma in Electrical which he had obtained from Government Polytechnic, Yavatmal. DW1-Sukhdeo Mahato, Dy. Personnel Manager deposed about the salary drawn by the deceased. He also divulged the date of birth of the deceased.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned tribunal arrived at the figure of loss of dependency at Rs.14,400/-. It has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased being unmarried, half of his income should have been deducted while arriving at the figure of loss of dependency. In SarlaVerma (Smt.) and others..vs..Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“But where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.....”
8. Unfortunately the evidence of PW3 Parvati-mother of the deceased, is insufficient to deviate from the normal rule of deducting 50% of the income while fixing the loss of dependency. The deceased had already attained marriageable age. Applicant nos. 3 and 4, who are sister and brother, were already on the verge of attaining majority. Ramdas, who is claimant no.2, did not enter the witness box to explain about his income and the nature or type of work he is doing etc. In that view of the matter, it appears that the approach of the learned tribunal in deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased was wrong and contrary to the evidence on record.
9. The next controversy is regarding choice of multiplier. The learned tribunal, while choosing the multiplier of 20 relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ShriKrishan Lal thr. LRs. and ors...vs..Shri Mohd. Din and ors.;AIR 1994 Delhi 10. Reliance was also placed on Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. ..vs.. Nirmala Devi; AIR 1979 SC 1666 and HardeoKaur ..vs.. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp.; AIR 1992 SC 1261.
10. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd...vs..Shyam Singh and ors.;2011 ACJ 1990. According to him, the choice of multiplier has to be determined by the age of the deceased or claimants, whichever is higher.
11. In SarlaVerma (supra), Their Lordships took review of earlier pronouncements on this issue and observed that there has to be uniformity in applying multiplier and choice of the multiplier has to be determined on the basis of the age of the deceased as per table specified.
It was observed as follows:
“18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issue to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay”
12. Following the decision in SarlaVerma (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme court, in the case of P. S. Somnathan and ors...vs...District Insurance Officer and anr.; (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 566, held that the ratio in SarlaVerma (supra) is a leading decision giving guidelines for ascertaining the correct multiplier. In that case, the deceased who was 33 years of age, died in the motor accident, which resulted in his mother and brother filing claim petition. On the basis of the age of the deceased, the tribunal has considered a multiplier of 16, which was reduced to 5 by the High Court. While setting aside the decision of the High Court, it is observed:
“16. …..The reasoning of the High Court is not correct in view of the ratio in Sarla Verma. Following the same the High Court should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased. The finding of the High Court is contrary to the ratio in Sarla Verma, which is the leading decision on this question and which we follow.
17. This Court, therefore, cannot sustain the High Court judgment and is constrained to set aside the same. The award of MACT is restored.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In the present case, considering the age of the deceased which was 26 years, the proper multiplier would be 18. The proper multiplicand will have to be arrived thus:
Rs.1673.82/- (Monthly salary) i.e. Rs.1675/- (Rounded off) Rs.1675 x 12 = Rs.20,100/-. 50% amount will have to be deducted towards personal expenses, had the deceased been alive. Thus loss of dependency would be Rs.10,000/- p.a. And total loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,80,000/-. To this, the compensation under conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses will have to be added. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs.2,00,000/- inclusive of No Fault Liability.
14. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. In fact, it was not unusual to award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. In P . S. Somnathan and ors. (supra), the compensation awarded was at the rate of 12% p.a.
15. This is a case where unfortunate parents who lost their young son serving in Public Sector Undertaking and who had attained marriageable age, are being awarded compensation in terms of money after 2 decades. This reminds me of following observations in the case of Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd.(supra):.
“2. …..The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in free country in generous sales...
3. The delay of five years in such cases is a terrible commentary on the judicial process. If only no-fault liability, automatic reporting by the police who investigate the accident in a statutory pro forma signed by the claimants and forward to the tribunal as in Tamil Nadu and decentralised empowerment of such tribunals in every district coupled with informal procedures and liberation from court-fees and the sophisticated rules of evidence and burden of proof were introduced – easy and inexpensive if the State has the will to help the poor who mostly die in such accidents – law's delays in this compassionate jurisdiction can be banished. Social justice in action is the measure of the State's constitutional sensitivity. Anyway, we have made these observations hopefully to help focus the attention of the Union and the States.”
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly. The respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- inclusive of no fault liability to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till realisation, except on the amount already deposited. The amount be deposited with the M.A.C.T., Chandrapur. On such deposit is made, the tribunal shall invest 50% amount in any Nationalised Bank in the name of respondent no.1 and 50% amount in the name of respondent no.2 in a fixed deposits for a period of three years with an arrangement that they shall get monthly or quarterly interests. On maturity, the amount shall be paid to them without reference to the Court.
There shall be no order as to costs.