JUDGMENT 1. - Since these three appeals arise out of the same Judgment and Award dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in M.A.C.T. Cases Nos. 365, 366 and 367 of 1992 propose to decide them by a common Judgment. 2. The few facts leading to these appeals may briefly be stated. On 23-5-1992 at about 10.30 AM, Bus No.RJ-14/7280 was coming from Udaipur and was going to Mount Abu and when it reached near Village Rathoron Ka Guda, Car No.RRJ-6626 which was coming from Mount Abu Ali and was going towards Udaipur collided with each other. It is alleged that driver of the Bus was Shri Kajim and the Car was driven by Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav. As a result of this accident, Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav and other occupants of the Car Viz., Smt. Suman Yadav wife of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav, Miss Sumitra Yadav, Shri Jagdish Yadav, Shri Tarun Yadav and Miss Neha Yadav received various injuries and Krishna Kumar Yadav and Miss Sumitra Yadav died on the spot. Kajim Ali, the driver of the Bus went to the Police Station, Gogunda to lodge the First Information Report of this accident. The A.S.I. came to the place of the occurrence and the FIR Ex.P.1 was lodged on the same day at 11.00 AM at Police Station, Gogunda The Police registered a case under Ss. 279 337, 338 and 304A IPC against the driver of the Bus. The site was inspected and the site plan Ex.P.2 was prepared. Photos Ex.1 to Ex.6A were taken on the place of the occurrence. The parents of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav, his wife Smt. Suman, His daughter Miss Neha and his son Varun Yadav filed Claim Petition No.365 of 1992 before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur and claimed the compensation of Rs.72,11,270/-. It was stated in the claim petition that the age of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was about 32 years at the time of his death. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 16. His Pass-port Ex. 12 was also produced. At the relevant time, Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was serving on a very high executive post of Financial Advisor in Pesticides India Pvt. Limited, Udaipur and as per his pay certificate, Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 14018.50P. per month. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 16. His Pass-port Ex. 12 was also produced. At the relevant time, Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was serving on a very high executive post of Financial Advisor in Pesticides India Pvt. Limited, Udaipur and as per his pay certificate, Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 14018.50P. per month. It was also stated that Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav had a very brilliant academic career and promising service prospect and would have risen to a very high post in future. The age of the parents of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav is 75-73 years. Hence he would have survived more that 75 years. 3. Shri Jagdish Yadav preferred Claim Petition No. 366 of 1992 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.9,06,900/-. In the claim petition, it was stated that he sustained fractures of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th ribs and also of his right collor bone. The bone of his right hand was also fractured. The claimant had to remain in Udaipur Hospital and took treatment for about six months. 4. Shri Kanwarsingh, Smt. Rampyari, the parents of the deceased and Shri Rakesh, Miss Anita and Shri Ravi Yadav, the minors also filed claim petition No.367 of 1992 for Rs.5,81,000/- on account of the death of Miss Sumitra. It was stated in the petition that at the time of her death, Miss Sumitra was 19 years old and was earning Rs.2000/- per month. She was earning through Tuitions and tailoring work etc. 5. All the three claim petitions were contested by the non-petitioner-appellant and it was submitted that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav himself and not by the driver of the bus Shri Kajim Ali. It was pointedly stated that since the bus was coming from Udaipur and going towards Mount Abu, it was climbing the height whereas the Car was coming from Mount Abu and proceeding towards Udaipur and it was ascending. It was pointedly stated that since the bus was coming from Udaipur and going towards Mount Abu, it was climbing the height whereas the Car was coming from Mount Abu and proceeding towards Udaipur and it was ascending. Thus, on account of this fact, it is not likely that the bus could proceed at a high speed but the Car was definitely coming down at a very high speed and in order to avoid the accident, the Bus driver took extra precautions and brought the bus to a dead stop on the left side of the road and thereafter, the car coming at a very high speed dashed against the standing bus. Thus, it was rash and negligent act of the deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav, which resulted In the above unfortunate accident. Hence, according to the appellant, the Insurance Company and the owner of the Car were necessary parties and since they have not been arrayed as parties to the claim petitions, the same were liable to be dismissed. The non-petitioner appellant denied the claim of the claimants. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed Issues and tried all the three claim petitions separately, though consolidated evidence was recorded and all the three petitions were disposed of by a common Award. 7. The first Issue was with regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus and after discussing the evidence of the parties and the topography of the place of occurrence, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of Shri Kajim Ali, the driver of the bus that the above accident occurred. 8. Regarding compensation in claim petition No.365 of 1992, the learned Tribunal determined a sum of Rs. 18,15,000/- as compensation payable by the appellant to the claimants. In this connection, the learned Tribunal accepted the fact that at the relevant time, deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav was 30 years old and was working at a very high and important executive post of Financial Advisor in Pesticides India and was drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.14018.50P. as proved by Ex. 10. The learned Tribunal further observed that the pay certificate of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was proved by A.W.3 Shri Girdhar Gopal but he could not furnish the break up of the above consolidated pay. as proved by Ex. 10. The learned Tribunal further observed that the pay certificate of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav was proved by A.W.3 Shri Girdhar Gopal but he could not furnish the break up of the above consolidated pay. Shri Girdhar Gopal admitted that the deceased was also in receipt of some perks like medical allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances which were included in his pay. The learned Tribunal was aware of the fact that the deceased would have spent ⅓rd of his pay on himself in maintaining his standard of life. Approximately a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been fixed by the learned Tribunal as dependency per month. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and determined the compensation at Rs. 18,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded as consortium. The above amount was ordered to be paid by the non-petitioner-appellant to the claimants within two months and in case of failure to make the payment within the aforesaid time, the above amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. The learned Tribunal chalked out the scheme of distribution of the above amount between the claimants. 9. In claim petition No.366 of 1992, the learned Tribunal determined a sum of Rs.85,000/- payable by the non-petitioner-appellant to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him and the expenses incurred by him on his treatment etc. In this connection, the learned Tribunal took into consideration that as a result of the above accident, claimant Jagdish Yadav sustained multiple fractures of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th ribs and the right collar bone was also fractured. Even his bone of right hand was also fractured. The claimant took treatment for 6 months. The learned Tribunal did not believe the fact that the claimant really remained hospitalised for six months. However, the learned Tribunal relied on Exs. 71, 72 and 73 regarding fractures sustained by the claimant. It also did not believe the fact that as a result of the above injuries, the claimant sustained 45% disability. The learned Tribunal observed that the claimant suffered fractures and spent lot of money on his treatment. 10. In claim petition No.367 of 1992, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the claimants on account of the death of Miss Sumitra aged 19 years. The learned Tribunal observed that the claimant suffered fractures and spent lot of money on his treatment. 10. In claim petition No.367 of 1992, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the claimants on account of the death of Miss Sumitra aged 19 years. The learned Tribunal held that Miss Sumitra was earning Rs.2000/- per month and her dependency was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 16, a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 12. In these appeals, the following two questions arise for determination: 1. Whether Kajim Ali, the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, as a result of which, Krishna Kumar Yadav and Miss Sumitra Yadav died and other occupants of the car sustained injuries. 2. Whether it was a case of contributory negligence of deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav, who was driving the Car and Shri Kajim Ali, the driver of the bus? 3. Whether the quantum of compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal is correct? 13. Re: Points No. 1 & 2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very vehemently challenged the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding this point. He has submitted that a perusal of the topography of the place of the occurrence would show that at the relevant time, Kajim Ali the driver of the bus took extra precautions and on seeing that the driver of the car was driving the car at a very high speed brought the bus to a dead stop. However, the driver of the Car Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav could not hold control over the car and it dashed against the standing bus. It was, there fore, the entire rash and negligent act of Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav, on account of which this unfortunate incident occurred. He also pointed out that Kajim Ali was going from Udaipur towards Mount Abu whereas Krishna Kumar was coming from Mount Abu towards Udaipur and admittedly there was a slope and sharp curve on the road where the accident occurred. He also pointed out that Kajim Ali was going from Udaipur towards Mount Abu whereas Krishna Kumar was coming from Mount Abu towards Udaipur and admittedly there was a slope and sharp curve on the road where the accident occurred. The bus was ascending the height whereas the car was descending and on account of this special feature, if Shri Krishna Kumar who was driving the car could not control the car, it would automatically slide down with a high speed as it has actually happened. On the other hand, when Kajim Ali seeing the above car coming at a very high seed, he controlled the vehicle and made it to a halt. 14. The learned counsel has also referred to the statements of the witnesses in this regard. He, therefore, submitted that from the above evidence and the circumstances of the case, it is proved that it was not rash and negligent act of Kajim Ali. At any rate, even if it is held that he was negligent, it must also be held that Krishna Kumar Yadav was also negligent in driving his car. Thus, it is a clear cut case of contributory negligence. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants on the other hand supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 16. I have considered the rival contentions made at the bar. 17. A perusal of the site-plan produced on the file shows that where the accident occurred, the widh of the road is 12' and there is a Kutchha road of 9' and 5' on left and right side respectively. In the site plan, both the vehicles have been depicted which are lying adjacent to each other. The Investigating Officer noted that a part of the car was on the Kutchha road indicating thereby that the car was on the right side and the driver of the bus was negligent in colliding with the car. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the driver of the bus would have taken the bus on the kutchha road which was on his left side. He would not have stopped the bus on the middle of the orad. The witnesses have stated that the driver of the bus was driving it at a very high speed. He would not have stopped the bus on the middle of the orad. The witnesses have stated that the driver of the bus was driving it at a very high speed. I, therefore, rely on the statement of Jagdish who stated that the bus hit the car by coming on the wrong side. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the evidence and the circumstances of the case and in recording a finding against the driver of the bus. I find no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards Issue No.1 which is common to all cases. 18. Now, I may deal with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.18-A. Regarding the concept of quantum of compensation, the latest decision was rendered by the apex Court is U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok chand, (1996) 5 JT (SC) 356. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed various case-laws including the recent judgment delivered in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomus (1994) 2 SCC 176 : ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ) as also Foreign cases in Mallettl v. Me. monagle (1969) 2 All ER 178 and then laid down the following law: "We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by 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 award able to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier." "In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc. would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life-span taken. That is the reason why Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies' formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas, case, usually English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals/ Courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance's method without making deduction for imponderables." "The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of sections 163A and 163B in Chapter XI entitled 'Insurance of Motor Vehicle against Third Party Risks' Section 165-A begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiple varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this schedule the maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas' case." 19. In the light of the above observations, now would endeavour to examine the quantum of compensation which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and its justification. 20. In Appeal No.229 of 1995 which has arisen out of claim petition No.366 of 1992, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 85,000/- to the claimants. The claimant Jagdish Yadav has been examined as A.W.2 and he also produced the documents Exs.71 to 73. He has stated that as a result of the above accident, his 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th ribs were fractured and his right colour bone was also fractured. Even the bone of his right hand was fractured. He further submitted that he remained as an Indoor Patient in the Hospital for 6 months. The learned Tribunal has not believed this part of his evidence that he remained in the Hospital for 6 months. The witness has further stated that as a result of the above injuries, he incurred permanent physical disability to the extent of 45% and that has adversely affected his efficiency and has also increased his commercial and personal expenses. Regarding permanent physical disability, he has also produced the certificate. The learned Tribunal did not give break up of the award passed by it. It appears that the learned Tribunal assessed the extent of injuries and permanent physical disability as also the consequential loss of business as a result of the above permanent physical disability and awarded the above amount. In my opinion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The claimant sustained multiple fractures which must have necessitated his hospitalisation for few days and his absence from his business for few months. In my opinion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The claimant sustained multiple fractures which must have necessitated his hospitalisation for few days and his absence from his business for few months. There is also permanent physical disability. Pains-suffering, treatment expenses, business loss and the above physical disability if considered cumulatively, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was unreasonable. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded in this case by the learned Tribunal. The cross-objection filed by the claimant has also got no substance and the same deserves to be rejected. 21. In Appeal No. 183 of 1995 arising out Claim Petition No. 365 of 1992, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,15,000/ - in favour of the claimants. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, there is no dispute that deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav was about 30 years old at the time of his death. He was working on the post of Financial Advisor in M/s. Pesticides India Limited, Udaipur His Pay Certificate Ex.10 was produced, which was proved by A.W.3 Girdhar Gopal. According to his pay certificate Ex. 10, before his death deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav was drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.14018.50p. It was submitted on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was a brilliant Officer having outstanding academic career and highly promising future. He could have survived for more than 75 years because his parents are of the age of 75-73 years at this stage. His wife is 30 years old and his two Issues i.e. Neha and Varun are 8-5 years respectively in age. 22. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that A.W.3 Girdhar Gopal concealed the details of perks and amenities which were included in the pay of the deceased. Even his house rent allowance, medical facilities and other perks have also been concealed. The learned Tribunal after taking all these things into consideration considered ⅓rd amount against these perks and amenities etc. and assessed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be his dependency. Adopting the multiplier of 15, following the dictum laid down by the apex Court in Susama Thomas's case, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the claimants. The learned Tribunal after taking all these things into consideration considered ⅓rd amount against these perks and amenities etc. and assessed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be his dependency. Adopting the multiplier of 15, following the dictum laid down by the apex Court in Susama Thomas's case, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the claimants. The learned Tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of consortium. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 18,15,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was necessary for the claimants to have given details of the pay. Normally, in Private Companies, the Executive Officers are allowed several kinds of perks and amenities, which benefit the Company as well as the Executive Officers and also results in saving of Income Tax. Perhaps this is the reason that all the details which were available with the Company were not produced. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in not deducting Income Tax from the above amount, which the deceased could have paid on this amount. The dependency ought to have been worked out after deducting from the consolidated pay, the amount of perks as also Income Tax which the deceased would have paid. Since the claimants did not furnish any particulars of the details and the certificate which only certifies the consolidated pay, it cannot be accepted to be relevant pay for calculation. The rough calculation made by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered the liability of the deceased in respect of Income Tax. The possible Income Tax which the deceased would have paid ought to have been deducted from the pay of Rs.10,000/- which was worked out by the learned Tribunal. In my opinion, the income tax liability can be assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has also not deducted from the above, the personal expenses of the deceased. Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I assess the dependency of deceased Krishna Kumar at Rs.7500/- per month. In my opinion, the multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 14,40,000/-. The amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of consortium awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be maintained. In my opinion, the multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 14,40,000/-. The amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of consortium awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be maintained. Thus, in my opinion, the total amount of compensation of Rs.14,55,000/- in favour of the claimants is just and proper. 24. For the above reasons, the cross objection filed by the claimants is not tenable. 25. In appeal No.230 of 1995 arising out of claim petition No.367 of 1992, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- on account of the death of Miss Sumitra Yadav. According to the learned Tribunal, at the time of her death, Miss Sumitra was aged about 16-17 years and was unmarried the learned Tribunal held that she was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by way of teaching and tailoring work etc. and her dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal applied the multilier of 16 and determined the compensation at Rs.1,92,000/-. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the determination of above compensation is apparently erroneous. According to him, in cases where the victim of accident is of a young girl aged about 16-17 years, the compensation is being assessed in a different way. He has submitted that normally a Hindu Girl is being married at the age of 20-25 years. Moreover, in the instant case, there was no convincing proof that at the time of her death, Miss Sumitra was earning Rs.2,000/-per month. 27. On other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the dependency and also applied the multiplier correctly. 28. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In my opinion, in the case of a Hindu Girl, who is the victim of accident stands on a different footing as regards the . determination of compensation when she ts unmarried. The normal presumption is that a Hindu Girl gets married at the appropriate age around 20 or thereafter and the parents a re not recipients of the dependency allowance. Hence, it can be said that generally after a daughter is married and sent to her matrimonial home, she did not contribute anything towards the expenses of her parents. On the other hand, the parents are required to spend on their daughter. Hence, it can be said that generally after a daughter is married and sent to her matrimonial home, she did not contribute anything towards the expenses of her parents. On the other hand, the parents are required to spend on their daughter. 29. In Allah Bakhas v. Dhirendra Nath AIR 1983 Orissa 203, it has been observed as under: "A daughter is of considerable assistance to her parents in our community especially in a middle class or lower middle class family. She does not house-hold chores. Like any daughter, she is a nurse, a comforter and a maid at the time of need. "The parents were deprived of her affection, care and services. But at the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the uncertainties of the life, the inscrutable future." The different High Courts have taken the divergent view in awarding compensation in such cases but generally a lump sum is being awarded as compensation. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that a sum of Rs.80,000/- would the reasonable compensation. 30. The cross-objections filed by the claimants do not merit any consideration for the above reasons. 31. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, Appeal No. 183 of 1995 is allowed in part and instead of awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, a sum of Rs. 14,55,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents. Appeal No.229 of 1995 has no force and it is * hereby dismissed. Appeal No. 230 of 1995 is also allowed in part and instead of awarding a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents. The cross-objections filed on behalf of the claimants-respondents in all these appeals are hereby dismissed. 32. The learned Tribunal is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of the observations made in Para 17 of the Susamma Thomas case ( 1994 (2) SCC 176 ) for proper distribution of the amount of compensation ^amongst the claimants.Appeal partly allowed. *******