Smt. Krishna and Others Vs. Deepak Chhabra and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1939 - section 168 - compensation - determination - loss of dependency - application of method of multiplier.;determination of claim compensation in fatal accidents is not an easy task. it is well nigh impossible to weigh the loss of a human life in the balance of money. no amount of compensation, however high it may be, can compensate and make up the loss of a human life, howsoever poor he or she may be. the determination of compensation and its award is only a step to mitigate the financial hardship of the dependants who have been put in lurch due to the accidental death of the person who was maintaining the family and looking after them. no amount of compensation can repair the loss caused to the family of the deceased. the determination of amount of compensation can never be precise and has to be based on estimates. however, the compensation is always determined keeping in view well-settled guiding factors which can help in arriving a just and reasonable figure. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - after recording the evidence, documentary as well as oral, the tribunal held that anilkumar bhattacharya died on 13-5-1983 on katol road, nagpur as a result of accident with truck bearing no. 1,55,000/- to the claimants and they shall also bear the costs of the proceedings of the claim petition of the claimants corresponding to their success and the award shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. 5. the claimants being not satisfied with the aforesaid award, have filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. in para 16 of the award, the learned tribunal has held as under :16. from the evidence on record, two circumstances can be well established -(i) that he would have got the gross salary of rs. it is well-nigh impossible to weigh the loss of a human life in the balance of money. no amount of compensation, however high it may be, can compensate and make up the loss of a human life, howsoever poor he or she may be. however, the compensation is always determined keeping in view well-settled guiding factors which can help in arriving a just and reasonable figure. human life is always not a continuous enjoyable thing, the ups and downs of the life, its suffering and sorrows as well as its joys and pleasures have to be kept in mind. apart from the ups and downs in the working career like promotions or demotions, there may be ups and down in one's physical health. then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase'.17. it is now well settled by the supreme court in the case of g. any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. we disapprove these decisions of the high courts which have taken a contrary view. we indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases'.18. the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier.orderlodha, j. 1. the appellants, who are claimants, widow, minor daughter and minor son of deceased anilkumar bhattacharya, have preferred this appeal under section 110d of the motor vehicles act, 1939 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the motor accidents claims tribunal, nagpur in claim petition no. 96 of 1983, smt. krishna v. deepak chhabra, on 3rd of may 1985 whereby the learned tribunal has passed an award in favour of the claimants for a sum of rs. 1,55,000/- after deducting the interim compensation under section 92a for a sum of rs. 15,000/- against the respondents 1and 3 and also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation and proportionate costs.2. the claimants claimed a sum of rs. 6,05,000/- for untimely death of shri anilkumar bhattacharya due to the accident which was caused by rash and negligent act of the truck driver bearing truck no. mtg-4500 being driven by the respondent no. 2. it was averred in the claim petition that claimant no. 1 is the widow of deceased anilkumar while claimant no. 2 is the minor daughter and claimant no. 3 is the minor son of deceased anilkumar. deceased anilkumarand the claimants had come to nagpur to attend the marriage of their near relative which was performed on 13-5-1983. after the marriage, anilkumar and his brother-in-law shri ganguli left the house on the scooter which was being driven by anilkumar and shri ganguli was sitting on the pillion. when shri anilkumar was going by the side of seminary hills towards sadar and joined katol road, there is a junction and a turning, and anilkumar crossed that turning and took his scooter to the right side towards the liberty theatre and at that time a truck bearing no. mtg-4500 belonging to the respondent no. 1 and being driven by the respondent no. 2 rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the rear portion of the scooter and as a result thereof, shri anilkumar who was driving the scooter and shri ganguli who was sitting on the pillion, were thrown away and became unconscious. both of them died that very night. the offending vehicle i.e. the truck bearing no. mtg-4500 was insured with the respondent no. 3 the united india insurance company, mount road, nagpur. the claimants submitted in their claim petition that at the time of his death, anilkumar who was a diploma holder in engineering and was serving as a junior engineer in ballarpur paper mills, was earning a salary of rs. 1100/- per month. but for the untimely death of anilkumar, he would have at least rendered the benefit of rs. 900/- per month to the claimants. according to the claimants, the benefit resulting from the loss of the earning of the deceased was claimed at rs. 5,10,998/-; rs. 20,000/- were claimed by way of compensation for pain and suffering; rs. 96,000/-were claimed by way of compensation for seeking private accommodation for the family; rs. 10,000/- were claimed by way of compensation for loss of consortium; rs. 10,000/- were also claimed by way of compensation for loss of affection and company of the children and rs. 100/- were claimed by way of notice charges. the total aforesaid claim amounted to rs. 6,47,098/-but the claimants, however, restricted their claim only at rs. 6,05,000/-, as afore-stated.3. the respondent no. 2 (driver) remained absent and the claim proceedings proceeded ex-parte against him. the respondent no. 1 (owner-insured) and the respondent no. 3 (insurer) filed their reply to the claim petition and contested by traversing the averments made in the claim petition. the owner and the insurer admitted that the truck no. mtg-4500 belonged to the respondent no.1 and at the relevant time, was insured with the respondent no. 3, the respondents i and 3 denied that the driver of the truck was driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently or as a result thereof, deceased anilkumar died. according to the respondents 1 and 3, it was the deceased who was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and he contributed to the accident.4. the motor accident claims tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues in all. after recording the evidence, documentary as well as oral, the tribunal held that anilkumar bhattacharya died on 13-5-1983 on katol road, nagpur as a result of accident with truck bearing no. mtg-4500 and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent no. 2. the tribunal negatived that accident in question occurred due to the contributory negligence of deceased anilkumar while driving his scooter. it has been held by the learned tribunal that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of rs. 1,70,000/- and since a sum of rs. 15,000/- has already been paid to the claimants under section 92 a of the motor vehicles act, they are entitled to a compensation of rs. 1,55,000/- now. the tribunal thus passed the final order to the effect that the respondents 1 and 3 shall pay rs. 1,55,000/- to the claimants and they shall also bear the costs of the proceedings of the claim petition of the claimants corresponding to their success and the award shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.5. the claimants being not satisfied with the aforesaid award, have filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.6. shri marpakwar, learned cousel for the claimants, has raised three submissionsbefore us in the appeal. his first contention is that the learned tribunal committed an error in calculating the dependency of the claimants at rs. 700/- per month only. according to him, the deceased was serving as an engineer and getting salary of rs. 1320/- per month plus bonus of rs. 1800/- per annum and he was spending a sum of rs. 900/- on the dependents and as such, the learned tribunal ought to have calculated the dependency at the rate of rs. 900/- per month. his second submission is that the learned tribunal erred in arbitrarily deducting the amount of 30% from the compensation awarded on the ground of lump-sum payment. his submission is that no deduction ought to have been made while awarding lump-sum payment and in any case the said deduction could not have exceeded 10% of the lump-sum payment awarded. the third and last contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants is that the interest awarded by the learned tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum is arbitrary and unreasonable and the same should have been at least @ 12% per annum.7. on the other hand, shri somalwar, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurer submits that the award passed by the learned tribunal is just and reasonable, and does not call for any interference by this court in appeal.8. to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the findings of the tribunal. in para 16 of the award, the learned tribunal has held as under :--'16. from the evidence on record, two circumstances can be well established -- (i) that he would have got the gross salary of rs. 1500/- p.m. and (ii) that he would have continued to render the benefit to the family for 27 years more. the question that crops in at this stage is what benefit he would have rendered to the family every month. he was required to contribute to the g.p. fund. he was also under obligation to pay the professional tax. we do not know the other dues but these three deductions were inevitable. these three deductions would have definitely curtailed the take-home salary to the tune of rs. 1000/- per month. he was also a man of status. it was expected that he would be spending something for himself, entertaining the visitors at his office etc. etc. thus, the net benefit to the family, in my opinion, would be to the tune of rs. 700/- p.m.'.the learned tribunal further held in para 20 of its award as follows:--'20. thus, the picture, according to me, becomes clear. the deceased was yielding the benefit to the family to the tune of rs. 700/-per month. had this unfortunate accident not cut short his life, he would have continued to render this benefit to the family for 27 more years. thus, the total benefit to the family would have gone to the tune of rs. 2,26,800/-. this benefit would have accrued to the family every month turning over 27 years. as i am proposing to grant this benefit in a lump sum, a deduction of 30 per cent would be necessary. the net benefit thus would come to rs. 1,57,760/-. added to this, i would grant rs. 6500/- for loss of consortium and rs. 3000/- for the sufferings by the children. the total benefit would thus come to the tune of rs. 1,67,260/-. coming to a round about figure, i grant the compensation of rs. 1,70,000/-'.9. a perusal of the aforesaid findings would reveal that the learned tribunal held that the deceased would have got a gross salary or rs. 1500/- per month and that he would have continued to render the benefit to the family for 27 years more. however, the learned tribunal found that the deceased was required to contribute to g. p. fund, also obliged to pay professional tax and his take-home salary would have been rs. 1000/- per month after deducting expenditure of rs. 300/- per month which the deceased would have incurred on himslef. it was thus held that the net benefit to the family would be rs. 700/- per month and multiplying this benefit every month for a period of 27 years, the tribunal found that the total benefit to the family would have gone to the tune of rupees 2,26,800/- and after deducting the said sum by 30% in view of the lump-sum payment, the tribunal held that the net benefit to the familytowards this would come to rs. 1,57,760/-.10. determination of claim compensation in fatal accidents is not an easy task. it is well-nigh impossible to weigh the loss of a human life in the balance of money. no amount of compensation, however high it may be, can compensate and make up the loss of a human life, howsoever poor he or she may be. the determination of compensation ' and its award is only a step to mitigate the financial hardship of the dependants who have been put in lurch due to the accidental death of the person who was maintaining the family and looking after them. no amount of commendation can repair the loss caused to the family of the deceased. the determination of amount of compensation can never be precise and has to be based on estimates. however, the compensation is always determined keeping in view well-settled guiding factors which can help in arriving a just and reasonable figure.11. in concord of india insurance co. ltd. v. nirmala devi : [1979]118itr507(sc) , the apex court held as under (at p. 1667 of air) :--'the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limp in a free country in generous scales.'in gobald motor service ltd. v. r. m. k. veluswami : [1962]1scr929 , the supreme court referred to various imponderables which become relevant in fixation of multiplier and determination of award of compensation. human life is always not a continuous enjoyable thing, the ups and downs of the life, its suffering and sorrows as well as its joys and pleasures have to be kept in mind. so in determining the multiplier, it may not be correct to take the number of years from the date of death till the normal span of working life as the multiplier. apart from the ups and downs in the working career like promotions or demotions, there may be ups and down in one's physical health. one cannot rule out the possibility, though one may wish it not to be there, of ill health or premature death due to some unforeseen terminal disease of accident. keeping all this in view, it would not be wise to co-relate the multiplier with the number of remaining years of the working life. a reduction of multiplier is called for to take into consideration such diverse factors.12. it is true that once the learned tribunal found that the deceased would have got the gross salary of rs. 1500/- per month, the dependency fixed at the rate of rs. 700/-per month appears to be on the lower side. but at the same time, the tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 27 years which appears to be on the higher side. this aspect of the matter we propose to deal with a little later in the context of the recent decision of the apex court. but we feel that if the multiplier of 27 years applied by the learned tribunal is allowed to stand, the dependency determined by the learned tribunal at the rate of rs. 700/- per month does not call for any interference by this court.13. coming to the second question as to whether the learned tribunal was justified in deducting 30% on the ground of the lump-sum payment, we may observe that on this point also there is divergence of opinion and there is no uniformity. some of the high courts have held that no amount should be deducted on the ground of the lump-sum payment because of loss of value of a rupee when the ultimate compensation is paid to the claimants. it has been held by various courts that with the value of rupee dwindling due to rate of inflation, there is no justification in making deduction due to lump-sum payment while some of the courts have held that deduction of amount out of assessed compensation on account of lump-sum payment is justified. what should be the deduction, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. according to our considered opinion, there could not be any hard and fast rule that in all cases where lump-sum amount is awarded, there could be no deduction or if at all deduction is to be made, at what rate. the dedications on account of lump-sum payment also vary from case to case. in some cases, 10% of the deduction has been found to be just and proper while in other cases,deduction of 20%, 25% and even 30% has been found to be justified.14. in kantabai v. national insurance co. ltd. 992 acc cj 332, the division bench of this court allowed deduction of 20% on account of lump-sum payment. we feet that in the facts and circumstances of the present case also if the amount of dependency at the rate of rs. 700/- per month and a multiplier of 27 years as has been held by the tribunal, is allowed to stand, then the said amount which comes to rs. 2,26,800/- needs to be deducted by 20% only towards lump-sum payment and thus the net benefit would come to rs. 1,81,440/- instead of rupees 1,57,760/- as has been held by the learned tribunal. the tribunal has added rs. 6500/-for loss of consortium and rs. 3000/- for sufferings by the children and thus, on addition of a sum of rs. 9500/- to the said sum of rs. 1,81,440/-, the total benefit would come to rs. 1,90,940/- and making it a round figure would be rs. 1,95,000/-.15. thus, on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the award passed by the learned tribunal may be enhanced to rs. 1,95,000/-instead of rs. 1,70,000/-.16. however, as observed by us earlier, the amount of dependency determined by thelearned tribunal at the rate of rs. 700/- permonth is on the lower side and fixation ofmultiplier of 27 years is on the higher side andtherefore we propose to re-determine theamount of compensation in the light of theguiding factors laid down by the supremecourt in general manager, kerala stateroad transport corporation v. susamma thomas, : air1994sc1631 . according to the supreme court, 'the manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase'.17. it is now well settled by the supreme court in the case of g. m. kerala state road transport corporation : air1994sc1631 (cited supra) that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation which will make for uniformity and certainly of the awards. the supreme court thus held (at p. 1635 of air), 'the proper method of computation is the multiplier method. any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. some judgments of the high courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that s. 110b of the motor vehicles act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. it must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. we disapprove these decisions of the high courts which have taken a contrary view. we indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases'.18. the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. in terms of the supreme court, 'the multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised'.19. in the present case, the deceased was 33 years of age and was getting a total monthly salary of rs. 1322/- and in addition thereto, he was getting the annual bonus of 20% subject to the maximum of rs. 1800/- and the ex-gratia payment at 5% of the gross annual salary. these facts are fully proved by the statement of mr. saiman john (p. w. 1) at exhibit 19. the said witness has stated on oaththat the next promotion available to the deceased would have been accrued within a year or two had he not died and he would have stepped into the time-scale of rs. 650-1970 in the grade of an assistant engineer. at the time of death, deceased anilkumar was in the grade of rs. 250-1540 in the cadre of junior engineer when he died. as has been observed by the supreme court, 'of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. all contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful'.20. it would be apparent from the facts which have come on record that the deceased anilkumar was settled in his job and in view of deposition of p.w. 1 mr. saiman john, he was shortly going to be promoted in the grade of assistant engineer and thus, taking into consideration prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income, it would not be erroneous to hold the monthly gross income of the deceased at the rate of rs. 1500/- per month. even the tribunal has found the gross salary of the deceased at the rate of rs. 1500/-per month. from this has to be deducted the personal living expenses of the deceased, the quantum of which again depends on various factors and from person to person. however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deducting 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treating the balance as an amount likely to have-been spent on the dependants/claimants. accordingly, the loss of dependency would come to rs. 1000/- per month. this loss of dependency shall have to be capitalised with the appropriate multiplier and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident which was 33 years and the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 16 years would be appropriate. thus, multiplying the dependency of rs. 1000/- per month i.e. rs. 12,000/- per year by a multiplier of 16 years, would work out to rs. 1,92,000/-. to this amount of rs. 1,92,000/- is to be added the amount of rs. 6500/- by way of loss of consortium and rs. 3000/- by way of loss of company to children and total amount works out to rs. 2,01,500/-. in terms of this, we think that in all a sum of rs. 2 lacs should be a fair, just and reasonable award in the facts and circumstances of the present case. a sum of rs. 15,000/- has already been paid to the claimants by way of interim compensation under s. 92a of the motor vehicles act and after deducting the said amount, the claimants become entitled to a sum of rs. 1,85,000/-.21. the tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the award which is grossly inadequate and too low. the proper rate of interest should be 12% per annum and which is a normal rate of interest awarded by the apex court in such cases. in chameli wati v. delhi municipal corporation, : air1986sc1191 , the apex court has held that the award of interest @ 12% per annum is reasonable. the same rate of interest is awarded by the apex court in jasbir singh v. g.m. punjab roadways, : [1986]3scr1095 and hardeo kaur v. rajasthan state road transport corporation, : [1992]2scr272 . in the case of g. m. ksrtc : air1994sc1631 (cited supra), the supreme court has affirmed the rate of interest at 12% from the date of petition till payment is made. in the facts and circumstances of the present case also we hold that the respondents should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded by this court from the date of petition till payment is made.22. now a word about the payment in claim cases. the supreme court has laid down in an unequivocal terms in g. m, ksrtc (supra), 'in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that the tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in union carbide corpn. v. union of india, : air1992sc248 in the matter of appropriate investmentsto safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to explaitation'. the supreme court approved the guidelines laid down by gujarat high court in muljibhai ajarambhai harijan v. united india insurance co. ltd., : air1984guj7 and has held that those guidelines should be borne in mind by the tribunals in the cases of compensation and accident cases. since the present case relates to widow and minor claimants, the tribunal ought to have directed the amount of compensation awarded to be invested in long term deposit. however, the amount which has been awarded by the tribunal must have been withdrawn by the claimant/appellant no. 1. it is now directed that the enhanced amount of award by this court along with the difference in interest should be deposited by respondents before the motor accident claims tribunal, nagpur who would pass order for payment to the appellants in the light of the guidelines laid down by the apex court in g. m. kerala state road transport corporation : air1994sc1631 (cited supra).23. in the result, the instant appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is determined at rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs). since the amount of rs. 15,000/- by way of interim compensation under s. 92a of the motor vehicles act has already been paid during the pendency of the claim petition, the said amount is deducted and it is now ordered that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of rs. 1,85,000/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. the award of the motor accident claims tribunal, nagpur passed on 3rd may, 1985 in claim petition no. 96 of 1983 is modified accordingly. the respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal and they are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest and costs with the motor accident claims tribunal, nagpur within two months from today and the learned tribunal is directed to invest the said amount in the name of the claimants in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in general manager, ksrtc v. susamma thomas : air1994sc1631 (cited supra).24. appeal partly allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Lodha, J.

1. The appellants, who are claimants, widow, minor daughter and minor son of deceased Anilkumar Bhattacharya, have preferred this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 96 of 1983, Smt. Krishna v. Deepak Chhabra, on 3rd of May 1985 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award in favour of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- after deducting the interim compensation under Section 92A for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- against the respondents 1and 3 and also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation and proportionate costs.

2. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 6,05,000/- for untimely death of Shri Anilkumar Bhattacharya due to the accident which was caused by rash and negligent act of the truck driver bearing truck No. MTG-4500 being driven by the respondent No. 2. It was averred in the claim petition that claimant No. 1 is the widow of deceased Anilkumar while claimant No. 2 is the minor daughter and claimant No. 3 is the minor son of deceased Anilkumar. Deceased Anilkumarand the claimants had come to Nagpur to attend the marriage of their near relative which was performed on 13-5-1983. After the marriage, Anilkumar and his brother-in-law Shri Ganguli left the house on the scooter which was being driven by Anilkumar and Shri Ganguli was sitting on the pillion. When Shri Anilkumar was going by the side of Seminary Hills towards Sadar and joined Katol Road, there is a junction and a turning, and Anilkumar crossed that turning and took his scooter to the right side towards the Liberty Theatre and at that time a truck bearing No. MTG-4500 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and being driven by the respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the rear portion of the scooter and as a result thereof, Shri Anilkumar who was driving the scooter and Shri Ganguli who was sitting on the pillion, were thrown away and became unconscious. Both of them died that very night. The offending vehicle i.e. the truck bearing No. MTG-4500 was insured with the respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company, Mount Road, Nagpur. The claimants submitted in their claim petition that at the time of his death, Anilkumar who was a diploma holder in Engineering and was serving as a Junior Engineer in Ballarpur Paper Mills, was earning a salary of Rs. 1100/- per month. But for the untimely death of Anilkumar, he would have at least rendered the benefit of Rs. 900/- per month to the claimants. According to the claimants, the benefit resulting from the loss of the earning of the deceased was claimed at Rs. 5,10,998/-; Rs. 20,000/- were claimed by way of compensation for pain and suffering; Rs. 96,000/-were claimed by way of compensation for seeking private accommodation for the family; Rs. 10,000/- were claimed by way of compensation for loss of consortium; Rs. 10,000/- were also claimed by way of compensation for loss of affection and company of the children and Rs. 100/- were claimed by way of notice charges. The total aforesaid claim amounted to Rs. 6,47,098/-but the claimants, however, restricted their claim only at Rs. 6,05,000/-, as afore-stated.

3. The respondent No. 2 (Driver) remained absent and the claim proceedings proceeded ex-parte against him. The respondent No. 1 (Owner-insured) and the respondent No. 3 (insurer) filed their reply to the claim petition and contested by traversing the averments made in the claim petition. The owner and the insurer admitted that the truck No. MTG-4500 belonged to the respondent No.1 and at the relevant time, was insured with the respondent No. 3, The respondents I and 3 denied that the driver of the truck was driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently or as a result thereof, deceased Anilkumar died. According to the respondents 1 and 3, it was the deceased who was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and he contributed to the accident.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues in all. After recording the evidence, documentary as well as oral, the Tribunal held that Anilkumar Bhattacharya died on 13-5-1983 on Katol Road, Nagpur as a result of accident with truck bearing No. MTG-4500 and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal negatived that accident in question occurred due to the contributory negligence of deceased Anilkumar while driving his scooter. It has been held by the learned Tribunal that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- and since a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has already been paid to the claimants under Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, they are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- now. The Tribunal thus passed the final order to the effect that the respondents 1 and 3 shall pay Rs. 1,55,000/- to the claimants and they shall also bear the costs of the proceedings of the claim petition of the claimants corresponding to their success and the award shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.

5. The claimants being not satisfied with the aforesaid award, have filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.

6. Shri Marpakwar, learned cousel for the claimants, has raised three submissionsbefore us in the appeal. His first contention is that the learned Tribunal committed an error in calculating the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 700/- per month only. According to him, the deceased was serving as an Engineer and getting salary of Rs. 1320/- per month plus bonus of Rs. 1800/- per annum and he was spending a sum of Rs. 900/- on the dependents and as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have calculated the dependency at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. His second submission is that the learned Tribunal erred in arbitrarily deducting the amount of 30% from the compensation awarded on the ground of lump-sum payment. His submission is that no deduction ought to have been made while awarding lump-sum payment and in any case the said deduction could not have exceeded 10% of the lump-sum payment awarded. The third and last contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants is that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum is arbitrary and unreasonable and the same should have been at least @ 12% per annum.

7. On the other hand, Shri Somalwar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurer submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, and does not call for any interference by this court in appeal.

8. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the findings of the Tribunal. In para 16 of the award, the learned Tribunal has held as under :--

'16. From the evidence on record, two circumstances can be well established -- (i) that he would have got the gross salary of Rs. 1500/- p.m. and (ii) that he would have continued to render the benefit to the family for 27 years more. The question that crops in at this stage is what benefit he would have rendered to the family every month. He was required to contribute to the G.P. Fund. He was also under obligation to pay the professional tax. We do not know the other dues but these three deductions were inevitable. These three deductions would have definitely curtailed the take-home salary to the tune of Rs. 1000/- Per month. He was also a man of status. It was expected that he would be spending something for himself, entertaining the visitors at his office etc. etc. Thus, the net benefit to the family, in my opinion, would be to the tune of Rs. 700/- p.m.'.

The learned Tribunal further held in para 20 of its Award as follows:--

'20. Thus, the picture, according to me, becomes clear. The deceased was yielding the benefit to the family to the tune of Rs. 700/-per month. Had this unfortunate accident not cut short his life, he would have continued to render this benefit to the family for 27 more years. Thus, the total benefit to the family would have gone to the tune of Rs. 2,26,800/-. This benefit would have accrued to the family every month turning over 27 years. As I am proposing to grant this benefit in a lump sum, a deduction of 30 per cent would be necessary. The net benefit thus would come to Rs. 1,57,760/-. Added to this, I would grant Rs. 6500/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 3000/- for the sufferings by the children. The total benefit would thus come to the tune of Rs. 1,67,260/-. Coming to a round about figure, I grant the compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-'.

9. A perusal of the aforesaid findings would reveal that the learned Tribunal held that the deceased would have got a gross salary or Rs. 1500/- per month and that he would have continued to render the benefit to the family for 27 years more. However, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was required to contribute to G. P. Fund, also obliged to pay professional tax and his take-home salary would have been Rs. 1000/- per month after deducting expenditure of Rs. 300/- per month which the deceased would have incurred on himslef. It was thus held that the net benefit to the family would be Rs. 700/- per month and multiplying this benefit every month for a period of 27 years, the Tribunal found that the total benefit to the family would have gone to the tune of Rupees 2,26,800/- and after deducting the said sum by 30% in view of the lump-sum payment, the Tribunal held that the net benefit to the familytowards this would come to Rs. 1,57,760/-.

10. Determination of claim compensation in fatal accidents is not an easy task. It is well-nigh impossible to weigh the loss of a human life in the balance of money. No amount of compensation, however high it may be, can compensate and make up the loss of a human life, howsoever poor he or she may be. The determination of compensation ' and its award is only a step to mitigate the financial hardship of the dependants who have been put in lurch due to the accidental death of the person who was maintaining the family and looking after them. No amount of commendation can repair the loss caused to the family of the deceased. The determination of amount of compensation can never be precise and has to be based on estimates. However, the compensation is always determined keeping in view well-settled guiding factors which can help in arriving a just and reasonable figure.

11. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi : [1979]118ITR507(SC) , the apex court held as under (at p. 1667 of AIR) :--

'The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limp in a free country in generous scales.'

In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami : [1962]1SCR929 , the Supreme Court referred to various imponderables which become relevant in fixation of multiplier and determination of award of compensation. Human life is always not a continuous enjoyable thing, the ups and downs of the life, its suffering and sorrows as well as its joys and pleasures have to be kept in mind. So in determining the multiplier, it may not be correct to take the number of years from the date of death till the normal span of working life as the multiplier. Apart from the ups and downs in the working career like promotions or demotions, there may be ups and down in one's physical health. One cannot rule out the possibility, though one may wish it not to be there, of ill health or premature death due to some unforeseen terminal disease of accident. Keeping all this in view, it would not be wise to co-relate the multiplier with the number of remaining years of the working life. A reduction of multiplier is called for to take into consideration such diverse factors.

12. It is true that once the learned Tribunal found that the deceased would have got the gross salary of Rs. 1500/- per month, the dependency fixed at the rate of Rs. 700/-per month appears to be on the lower side. But at the same time, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 27 years which appears to be on the higher side. This aspect of the matter we propose to deal with a little later in the context of the recent decision of the apex court. But we feel that if the multiplier of 27 years applied by the learned Tribunal is allowed to stand, the dependency determined by the learned Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month does not call for any interference by this Court.

13. Coming to the second question as to whether the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 30% on the ground of the lump-sum payment, we may observe that on this point also there is divergence of opinion and there is no uniformity. Some of the High Courts have held that no amount should be deducted on the ground of the lump-sum payment because of loss of value of a rupee when the ultimate compensation is paid to the claimants. It has been held by various courts that with the value of rupee dwindling due to rate of inflation, there is no justification in making deduction due to lump-sum payment while some of the courts have held that deduction of amount out of assessed compensation on account of lump-sum payment is justified. What should be the deduction, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. According to our considered opinion, there could not be any hard and fast rule that in all cases where lump-sum amount is awarded, there could be no deduction or if at all deduction is to be made, at what rate. The dedications on account of lump-sum payment also vary from case to case. In some cases, 10% of the deduction has been found to be just and proper while in other cases,deduction of 20%, 25% and even 30% has been found to be justified.

14. In Kantabai v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 992 Acc CJ 332, the Division Bench of this Court allowed deduction of 20% on account of lump-sum payment. We feet that in the facts and circumstances of the present case also if the amount of dependency at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and a multiplier of 27 years as has been held by the Tribunal, is allowed to stand, then the said amount which comes to Rs. 2,26,800/- needs to be deducted by 20% only towards lump-sum payment and thus the net benefit would come to Rs. 1,81,440/- instead of Rupees 1,57,760/- as has been held by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has added Rs. 6500/-for loss of consortium and Rs. 3000/- for sufferings by the children and thus, on addition of a sum of Rs. 9500/- to the said sum of Rs. 1,81,440/-, the total benefit would come to Rs. 1,90,940/- and making it a round figure would be Rs. 1,95,000/-.

15. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be enhanced to Rs. 1,95,000/-instead of Rs. 1,70,000/-.

16. However, as observed by us earlier, the amount of dependency determined by thelearned Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 700/- permonth is on the lower side and fixation ofmultiplier of 27 years is on the higher side andtherefore we propose to re-determine theamount of compensation in the light of theguiding factors laid down by the SupremeCourt in General Manager, Kerala StateRoad Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, : AIR1994SC1631 . According to the Supreme Court, 'The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase'.

17. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation : AIR1994SC1631 (cited supra) that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation which will make for uniformity and certainly of the awards. The Supreme Court thus held (at p. 1635 of AIR), 'The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that S. 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation Would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases'.

18. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. In terms of the Supreme Court, 'The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised'.

19. In the present case, the deceased was 33 years of age and was getting a total monthly salary of Rs. 1322/- and in addition thereto, he was getting the annual bonus of 20% subject to the maximum of Rs. 1800/- and the ex-gratia payment at 5% of the gross annual salary. These facts are fully proved by the statement of Mr. Saiman John (P. W. 1) at exhibit 19. The said witness has stated on oaththat the next promotion available to the deceased would have been accrued within a year or two had he not died and he would have stepped into the time-scale of Rs. 650-1970 in the grade of an Assistant Engineer. At the time of death, deceased Anilkumar was in the grade of Rs. 250-1540 in the cadre of Junior Engineer when he died. As has been observed by the Supreme Court, 'Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful'.

20. It would be apparent from the facts which have come on record that the deceased Anilkumar was settled in his job and in view of deposition of P.W. 1 Mr. Saiman John, he was shortly going to be promoted in the grade of Assistant Engineer and thus, taking into consideration prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income, it would not be erroneous to hold the monthly gross income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. Even the Tribunal has found the gross salary of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1500/-per month. From this has to be deducted the personal living expenses of the deceased, the quantum of which again depends on various factors and from person to person. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deducting 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treating the balance as an amount likely to have-been spent on the dependants/claimants. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1000/- per month. This loss of dependency shall have to be capitalised with the appropriate multiplier and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident which was 33 years and the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 16 years would be appropriate. Thus, multiplying the dependency of Rs. 1000/- per month i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per year by a multiplier of 16 years, would work out to Rs. 1,92,000/-. To this amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- is to be added the amount of Rs. 6500/- by way of loss of consortium and Rs. 3000/- by way of loss of company to children and total amount works out to Rs. 2,01,500/-. In terms of this, we think that in all a sum of Rs. 2 lacs should be a fair, just and reasonable award in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- has already been paid to the claimants by way of interim compensation under S. 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting the said amount, the claimants become entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/-.

21. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the award which is grossly inadequate and too low. The proper rate of interest should be 12% per annum and which is a normal rate of interest awarded by the apex Court in such cases. In Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, : AIR1986SC1191 , the apex Court has held that the award of interest @ 12% per annum is reasonable. The same rate of interest is awarded by the apex Court in Jasbir Singh v. G.M. Punjab Roadways, : [1986]3SCR1095 and Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, : [1992]2SCR272 . In the case of G. M. KSRTC : AIR1994SC1631 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has affirmed the rate of interest at 12% from the date of petition till payment is made. In the facts and circumstances of the present case also we hold that the respondents should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded by this Court from the date of petition till payment is made.

22. Now a word about the payment in claim cases. The Supreme Court has laid down in an unequivocal terms in G. M, KSRTC (supra), 'In a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, : AIR1992SC248 in the matter of appropriate investmentsto safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to explaitation'. The Supreme Court approved the guidelines laid down by Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., : AIR1984Guj7 and has held that those guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation and accident cases. Since the present case relates to widow and minor claimants, the Tribunal ought to have directed the amount of compensation awarded to be invested in long term deposit. However, the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal must have been withdrawn by the claimant/appellant No. 1. It is now directed that the enhanced amount of award by this Court along with the difference in interest should be deposited by respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur who would pass order for payment to the appellants in the light of the guidelines laid down by the apex Court in G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation : AIR1994SC1631 (cited supra).

23. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is determined at Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). Since the amount of Rs. 15,000/- by way of interim compensation under S. 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act has already been paid during the pendency of the claim petition, the said amount is deducted and it is now ordered that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur passed on 3rd May, 1985 in Claim Petition No. 96 of 1983 is modified accordingly. The respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal and they are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest and costs with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur within two months from today and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest the said amount in the name of the claimants in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex Court in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 (cited supra).

24. Appeal partly allowed.